M/S Ark Infratech vs. State Of U P And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding the detention and penalty order passed under Section 129 of the U.P.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, involved factual issues. The Court noted that the order under Section 129(3) had determined the petitioner was not the owner of the goods and imposed a penalty under Section 129(1)(b). Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, against the order passed by the proper officer. All factual disputes raised in the writ petition could be agitated before the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Ark Infratech, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner contended that the search and seizure of goods violated the Act and its rules, specifically alleging that while the seizure memo (GST MOV-02) was served on the driver, the detention order (FORM GST MOV-06) was not served. The respondent department refuted this, stating FORM GST MOV-06 was served on the custodian/driver. The petitioner also argued that goods could not be detained arbitrarily, citing a difference in signatures as the sole ground for detention. The revenue pointed out that the order under Section 129(3) held the petitioner was not the owner of the goods and imposed penalty under Section 129(1)(b).

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings of search and seizure of goods were in violation of the provisions of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and its rules, specifically concerning the service of the detention order (FORM GST MOV-06)? 2. Whether the goods could be detained arbitrarily under Section 129(1) of the Act based on allegations of a difference in signatures? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the detention order in FORM GST MOV-06 was not served upon the custodian/driver, making the proceedings illegal. They also contended that goods could not be detained arbitrarily, and the alleged difference in signatures was an insufficient ground for detention under Section 129(1) read with Section 68 of the Act. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent department argued that the copy of FORM GST MOV-06 was indeed served on the custodian/driver. They further contended that the petitioner, not being present at the time of interception and claiming to be the owner, could not argue about the non-service of the order on the driver. The revenue also highlighted that the order under Section 129(3) found the petitioner not to be the owner and imposed penalty under Section 129(1)(b).