Court overturns ex-parte order under Section 129(3) of UP GST Act, 2017, emphasizing fair assessment

The court set aside the ex-parte order dated 24.08.2021, ruling in favor of the petitioner in a challenge under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 regarding ownership of seized goods. The petitioner's ownership claim was not duly considered, leading to the order being overturned. The respondent was directed to reevaluate the petitioner's claim and issue a new order within a week, emphasizing the necessity of fair assessment in such cases.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to order under Section 129(3) of UP GST Act, 2017 regarding ownership of seized goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017, claiming ownership of goods seized during transportation. The petitioner purchased the goods from a dealer in Bihar and was intercepted by authorities in Meerut. A show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner submitted a written reply along with online payment equivalent to the tax and penalty. The petitioner contended that the respondent erred in not acknowledging his ownership claim, making the demand illegal. The respondent argued that the goods were not traceable to a bona fide owner, but it was noted that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's ownership claim, leading to an ex-parte decision. The petitioner's payment and claim as the owner were considered, leading to the setting aside of the order dated 24.08.2021.

The court found that the order was passed ex-parte against the petitioner without due consideration of his claim over the goods. Therefore, the order dated 24.08.2021 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The matter was remitted to the respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's claim. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, who was instructed to issue an appropriate order within a week. All consequential proceedings were to abide by the order passed by the said authority in compliance with the court's decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's ownership claim and conducting a fair assessment before passing any orders under the relevant provisions of the Act.

---