2021 (7) TMI 744 - HC - GST

Court orders respondents to file counter affidavit, grants time. Goods & vehicle release upon petitioner depositing tax & penalty.

Western Carrier India Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others

The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and granted time for the same. Subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty, the ... Seeking release of the goods and vehicle of the petitioner - tax evasion - section 20 of IGST Act read with Section 129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks' thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit - List in the week commencing 1.9.2021. In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty within a period of two weeks from today, in the prescribed manner and in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 140 of UPGST Rules, 2017, on the valuation disclosed in the invoice, the goods and vehicle may be released in favour of the petitioner. Issues:Validity of order under IGST Act and CGST Act, detention of goods and vehicle, rejection of appeal, authorization by corporate entity, legal errors in judgment, imposition of tax and penalty, absence of appellate tribunal.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the order passed under the IGST Act and CGST Act, seeking release of detained goods and vehicle. The consignment involved steel items transported from Odisha to Haryana, facing a breakdown in Jharkhand. Despite repairs and a delayed journey, the vehicle was detained in Kanpur due to an expired EWay Bill. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice, emphasizing no discrepancy in the consignment. The appeal was rejected, upholding the detention.In the appeal, the petitioner argued that Section 129(1) of the Act was inapplicable, supported by the consignor's authorization to take custody. The rejection of appeal was contested, highlighting errors in requiring additional documentation for authorization. The petitioner criticized the appellate authority for not adequately addressing legal precedents and misapplying judgments.Furthermore, it was contended that Section 129(1)(a) applied to the petitioner as the consignment's owner per the authorization from M/s Tata Steel Ltd. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay tax and penalty. Additionally, the absence of an appellate tribunal in Uttar Pradesh was raised as a concern.The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit and granted time for the same. Subject to the petitioner depositing tax and penalty, the goods and vehicle were to be released. The petitioner was instructed to provide a self-attested copy of the order, verified by the concerned authority, for release.