2018 (9) TMI 367 - HC - GST

Judicial Review Validates Goods Seizure Procedure, Mandates Security Deposit and Procedural Compliance Under UPGST Regulations

HC ruled on goods seizure under UPGST Act. Petitioner challenged seizure order's legal validity due to lack of specific provision citation. Court directed ... Seizure of goods - seizure order does not disclose the specific provision of law which has been violated in transporting the goods - Held that:- Learned Standing Counsel may seek instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit within a month. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter - In the meantime the goods seized along with vehicle shall be released forthwith on furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of tax and penalty imposed. The Allahabad High Court heard a case regarding the seizure of goods under the U.P.G.S.T Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the seizure order did not specify the violated provision of law and did not follow mandatory circular directions. The court directed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions, file a counter affidavit, and set a timeline for further proceedings. The seized goods and vehicle were ordered to be released upon furnishing security equivalent to the tax and penalty imposed.