High Court dismisses writ petition challenging UPGST Act seizure order & penalty proceedings

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a seizure order and penalty proceedings under the UPGST Act. The petitioners sought release of their seized goods and vehicle, which were sold to unregistered buyers with incomplete details. The respondent seized the goods and vehicle due to alleged tax evasion related to the nature of the goods as 'PARCHUN GOODS'. The Court noted disputed facts and advised adjudication by the authorities. The petitioners did not dispute the appealability of the order, leading to the dismissal of the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum or appellate authority for redressal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to seizure order and penalty proceedings under UPGST Act; Release of seized goods and vehicle; Identity of unregistered buyers; Nature of goods as 'PARCHUN GOODS'; Allegation of tax evasion; Disputed questions of fact; Appealability of impugned order.

Analysis:
The High Court heard a writ petition challenging a seizure order and penalty proceedings under the UPGST Act. The petitioners, situated in Delhi, sought release of their seized goods and vehicle. The goods in question were sold to unregistered parties in Kanpur, with incomplete details of the buyers provided in the invoices and goods receipt. The petitioners admitted that the buyers were unregistered, raising doubts about their identity. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 129(1) of UPGST, seizing the goods and vehicle on grounds of tax evasion due to the nature of the goods as 'PARCHUN GOODS', loose items transported without proper documentation. The Court noted disputed facts and suggested adjudication by the authorities, including the appellate authority.

The petitioners did not contest the appealability of the impugned order, leading the Court to dismiss the writ petition with liberty for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum or appellate authority as per the law. The Court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioners to raise their grievances before the relevant appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit, directing the petitioners to seek redressal through the proper channels.

---