Rahul Katiyar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Rahul Katiyar and another, approached the High Court seeking the release of their goods and vehicle. A penalty order was passed against them on October 28, 2017, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. The petitioners stated they had deposited a portion of the computed amount but faced a penalty demand equal to the value of the goods. The vehicle in question is a truck bearing registration number UP-17-C-5165. The writ petition was filed on January 19, 2018.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners have 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 and should be availed first. Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition directly on merits. However, as a measure of immediate relief and to facilitate the pursuit of the statutory remedy, the Court directed the forthwith release of the vehicle bearing registration number UP-17-C-5165. The Court also granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within one week, with a direction for expeditious hearing and disposal of the appeal within fifteen days thereafter. The issue of the validity of the penalty order itself was left to be decided in the appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy against the penalty order passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought immediate release of their goods and vehicle through the writ petition, implying that the available remedies were not considered adequate or expeditious enough for their situation. They did not explicitly argue against the existence of an alternative remedy but rather sought direct intervention from the High Court. Respondent's contention: The State argued that the petitioners possess an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. This was the primary basis for the State's position that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 40 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rahul Katiyar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripahti, learned Standing 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 28.10.2017 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.UP-17-C-5165 may be released forthwith.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.1.2018 pks
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.