2021 (1) TMI 1199 - HC - GST

High Court Petition Challenges Appeal Authority Order sans Tribunal; Goods Ownership Not Disputed

The High Court entertained a petition challenging the appeal authority's order in the absence of a constituted Tribunal. Despite discrepancies in the tax ... CENVAT Credit - tax invoice was found not supporting the goods as discovered upon physical verification - HELD THAT:- There was nothing to doubt the ownership over the goods and ownership may arise even if the dealer is an unregistered dealer. In that regard, it has been further submitted that there was no competing claim made by any other person as to the title of the goods. Matter requires consideration. Issues:1. Challenge against the order of the appeal authority.2. Discrepancy in tax invoice and physical verification of goods.3. Ownership of goods by an unregistered dealer.4. Absence of competing claims over the title of the goods.5. Consideration of the matter.6. Time granted for filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.7. Release of goods and vehicle upon furnishing security.Analysis:1. The petition was filed challenging the order of the appeal authority, as no Tribunal had been constituted at that time. The High Court decided to entertain the petition at this stage due to the absence of a Tribunal.2. The petitioner argued that although the tax invoice did not match the goods found during physical verification, there was no doubt regarding ownership of the goods. It was contended that ownership could exist even if the dealer was unregistered. Moreover, there were no conflicting claims made by any other party regarding the title of the goods.3. The Court acknowledged that the matter required further consideration, indicating a need for a detailed examination of the issues raised by the petitioner.4. The Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents accepted the notice and was granted four weeks to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner was given an additional two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit following the submission of the counter affidavit.5. The Court scheduled the case for listing after the completion of the affidavit filing process, emphasizing the importance of procedural timelines in the legal proceedings.6. In the interim, subject to the petitioner providing security within two weeks as per the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the goods and vehicle could be released in favor of the petitioner upon application to the retaining authority.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented, the procedural steps taken by the Court, and the interim relief granted pending further proceedings.