M/S Pacificmet Energy Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit, Sector-1, Amroha (J.P. Nagar) Uttar Pradesh A

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at this preliminary stage due to the existence of an adequate statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that seizure matters are to be dealt with expeditiously, and the writ forum is not always the appropriate forum for such proceedings. While acknowledging the petitioner's submission regarding an earlier pronouncement, the Court did not delve into its applicability. Instead, it directed that the petitioner could approach the statutory authority and request them to abide by the law declared by the Court. The Court did not enter into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with the observation that if the petitioner avails the statutory remedy of appeal within one week, the same may be dealt with and decided expeditiously, preferably within one month.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Pacificmet Energy Private Limited, challenged proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017, before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner argued that the matter was covered by an earlier judgment of the same court in M/S Maruti Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit, Amroha. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not recorded. The procedural history involved the initiation of proceedings under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, leading to the present writ petition challenging these proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at this preliminary stage, given the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal under the UP GST Act, 2017, concerning proceedings under Section 129(3)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the matter was covered by an earlier pronouncement of the High Court in M/S Maruti Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., implying that the statutory authority should follow the declared law. The petitioner sought interference at the writ stage based on this precedent. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that a statutory remedy of appeal is available against the impugned order. They did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case or the applicability of the cited precedent but relied on the availability of the appellate mechanism.