Court Orders Deposit for Seized Goods Release: Upholds UPGST Penalty, Stresses Revenue

The court directed M/s Shabharwal Traders to deposit assessed tax and penalty amounts with the seizing authority for the release of seized goods and vehicle. The petitioner's challenge against the seizure and penalty orders passed under UPGST was considered, with emphasis on revenue interests. The court addressed concerns regarding the non-constitution of a tribunal and discrepancies in the order, providing instructions for compliance and further proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and penalty orders passed under UPGST.
2. Appeal against seizure order filed by the petitioner.
3. Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner.
4. Challenge to the order affirming the seizure by the First Appellate Authority.
5. Non-constitution of tribunal by competent authority.
6. Imposition of tax liability and penalty on seized goods.
7. Allegations of illegal and arbitrary seizure.
8. Dispute regarding the identity of the petitioner.
9. Interest of revenue and justice.
10. Direction for deposit of assessed tax and penalty for release of seized goods and vehicle.
11. Verification and filing of counter affidavit.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed by M/s Shabharwal Traders challenging the seizure and penalty orders passed under UPGST against Md. Saheed, the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner, a registered firm, appealed against the seizure order, contending that the goods and vehicle were detained illegally since December 2018. The Additional Commissioner's order was passed in the name of different entities, leading to confusion and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about the non-constitution of a tribunal, depriving them of a proper remedy against the impugned order. The seizing authority imposed a tax liability of Rs. 1,84,000 and a penalty of Rs. 36,96,000 on the seized goods. The petitioner argued that the seizure and detention were unlawful and arbitrary, seeking relief from the court.

3. The Standing Counsel for the department disputed the petitioner's association with the seized goods, questioning their identity and involvement. Emphasizing the interest of revenue, the counsel urged the court to secure the revenue's interests in the matter.

4. After hearing both parties and considering the facts, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the assessed tax of Rs. 1,84,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 with the seizing authority. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to provide security for the remaining penalty amount. Upon compliance, the seized goods and vehicle would be released in accordance with the law.

5. The Standing Counsel was tasked with submitting a computer-generated copy of the order from the High Court's official website for verification. The respondent authority was required to file a counter affidavit with all relevant material for the court's decision. Timelines were set for the filing of affidavits, with the petition listed for further proceedings on a specified date.

---