Petition dismissed where s.129(3) notice issued, dues paid via DRC-03 and proceedings concluded under s.129(5) read with Rule 142(3)

HC dismissed the petition seeking direction to respondent no. 3 to pass or supply a copy of an order under s.129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST Act. The court found a s.129(3) notice was issued, the petitioner deposited the dues via GST DRC-03 and respondent issued form GST DRC-05; proceedings therefore stood concluded under s.129(5) read with Rule 142(3). As the statutory process was complete, no mandamus could be issued to direct further orders or supply a copy, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of Section 129(3) and (5) of the CGST Act
- Compliance with Rule 142(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017
- Request for mandamus to provide a copy of the order under Section 129(3)
- Relief sought for passing consequential orders under Section 129(3)

Interpretation of Section 129(3) and (5) of the CGST Act:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent to provide a copy of the order passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner's goods were detained by the respondent, and after depositing the demanded amount, the goods were released. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 129(3) and (5) of the CGST Act. It was observed that once the petitioner deposited the amount demanded under Section 129(3) and the proper officer issued an order in response, the proceedings stood concluded as per the legislative mandate. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted as per the statutory provisions.

Compliance with Rule 142(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017:
The court also considered Rule 142(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which outlines the procedure for concluding proceedings after the payment of tax, interest, or penalty. The rule mandates that upon payment, the person must intimate the proper officer, who shall then issue an order concluding the proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner had complied with the requirements by depositing the amount and informing the respondent. Consequently, the respondent issued an order in compliance with the rule, leading to the conclusion of the proceedings related to the notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.

Request for mandamus to provide a copy of the order under Section 129(3):
The petitioner had also requested a mandamus to direct the respondent to provide a copy of the order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. However, the court held that since the proceedings had already concluded in accordance with the statutory provisions, no mandamus could be issued to the respondent to pass an order under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST Act. The court emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioner was misconceived as the matter had been concluded as per the legal requirements.

Relief sought for passing consequential orders under Section 129(3):
Lastly, the court addressed the petitioner's plea for a mandamus directing the respondent to pass consequential orders under Section 129(3) after affording an opportunity for a hearing. The court dismissed this contention, stating that once the proceedings under Section 129(3) had concluded as per the statutory provisions, no mandamus contrary to the law could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the court based on the above considerations.

---