2018 (11) TMI 957 - HC - GST

Court orders release of goods and vehicle due to delay in notice issuance

M/s A.M Enterprises Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others

The Allahabad High Court found that there was an unjustified delay in issuing a notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - goods were not accompanied by the e-way bill - Held that:-Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 contemplates for immediate release of the detained/seized goods on furnishing security and indemnity bond as may be provided under the order passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act - The order under Section 129 (3) of the Act was not passed for more than 12 days and thus the goods and the vehicle was unnecessarily kept detained and seized by the respondent without any just and proper cause. Apparently there is inordinate delay on part of the officer in issuing notice under Section 129 (3) of the Act and in not passing an order under Section 129 (1) of the Act - respondents called upon to file personal affidavit of Arun Kumar Singh, V Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad-3) Meerut to show cause why notice under Section 129 (3) of the Act or the order of release of the goods could not be passed immediately after the goods were detained or seized on 3.11.2018 - List on 5th December 2018. Issues involved: Delay in issuing notice under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 leading to unnecessary detention of goods and vehicle.In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner's goods were intercepted and detained for not having an e-way bill as required by Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the order under Section 129 (3) was not passed for over 12 days, resulting in unjustified detention. The Court observed an inordinate delay in issuing the notice under Section 129 (3) and not passing an order under Section 129 (1) promptly. Consequently, the respondents were directed to file a personal affidavit explaining the delay and were instructed to release the goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee equivalent to the proposed tax and penalty, as per Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. The matter was listed for further hearing on 5th December 2018.The judgment highlights the importance of timely action by tax authorities in cases of goods detention under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, emphasizing the need for immediate release upon fulfillment of specified conditions. It underscores the obligation of officials to adhere to legal provisions and act promptly to avoid unnecessary delays causing inconvenience to taxpayers. The Court's intervention in ensuring compliance with procedural requirements serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural fairness and efficiency in tax enforcement matters.