TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Challenges Seizure Decision, High Court Intervenes</h1> <h3>D.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others</h3> D.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others - TMI 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
