Petitioner Challenges Seizure Decision, High Court Intervenes

The petitioner's goods were detained and seized under Section 129(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, leading to an appeal rejection by the Appellate Authority. The Authority failed to provide reasons for not accepting the petitioner's explanation, raising concerns about its statutory duties. Despite an extension of the limitation period for filing a second appeal, the Tribunal has not been constituted since the enactment of the CGST Act in 2017. This delay has prompted dealers to seek relief from the High Court, highlighting the Government's failure to fulfill its obligations. The Court has directed the respondents to respond within three weeks, stressing the need for timely access to legal remedies for taxpayers.

---

---

Issues:
1. Detention and seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the IGST Act, 2017.
2. Appeal rejection by the Appellate Authority.
3. Failure of the Appellate Authority to record reasons for not accepting the petitioner's explanation.
4. Extension of the period of limitation for filing a second appeal before the Tribunal under the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019.
5. Delay in constituting the Tribunal under the CGST Act, 2017, leading to the denial of remedy to dealers.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's goods were detained and seized under Section 129(1) of the IGST Act, 2017, and a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued. The petitioner deposited the demanded amount but filed an appeal against the order. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the decision.

2. The Appellate Authority failed to provide any material basis for not accepting the petitioner's explanation for the discrepancy in the E-Way bill. The Authority did not establish any intent to evade tax, raising concerns about the proper discharge of its statutory duties.

3. The Central Government issued the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, extending the period of limitation for filing a second appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not been constituted despite the enactment of the CGST Act in 2017, creating a situation where dealers are denied a legal remedy.

4. The delay in constituting the Tribunal has led to dealers approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for relief. The Court has requested the assistance of legal counsel to address the issue of non-constitution of the Tribunal, highlighting the failure of the Government to fulfill its statutory function.

5. The Court has directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within three weeks and allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit thereafter. The case is scheduled for further hearing, emphasizing the importance of addressing the delay in constituting the Tribunal and ensuring timely access to legal remedies for taxpayers.

---