M/S Hind Logistic vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Hind Logistic, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging a penalty order dated December 27, 2017, passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The penalty was imposed on the petitioner's goods and vehicle. The petitioner stated that they had already deposited a portion of the computed amount but faced a demand for a penalty equal to the value of the goods. The vehicle in question is Truck bearing Registration No. HR55 R 0092.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that statutory remedies are designed to address such grievances. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to avail this statutory remedy. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within one week, it should be heard and disposed of expeditiously, preferably within fifteen days thereafter. As an interim measure, the Court ordered the immediate release of the vehicle, Truck bearing Registration No. HR55 R 0092. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy against the penalty order passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought immediate release of their goods and vehicle through the writ petition, implying a challenge to the penalty order itself or seeking interim relief. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments regarding the efficacy of the alternative remedy. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 85 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Hind Logistic Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripahti, learned Special Counsel for the State.
The petitioner has come up before this Court with a prayer that his goods along with vehicle may be released. The penalty order has been passed on 27.12.2017 under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act.
The petitioner states that he has already deposited part of the amount as has been computed in the notice but there is a demand against him for penalty which is equal to the value of the goods.
The petitioner has equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It is left open to the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to him under the law.
In case the petitioner files an appeal within a week, his appeal may be heard and disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of fifteen days thereafter.
However, the vehicle being Truck bearing Registration No.HR55 R 0092 may be released forthwith.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2018 S.P.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.