Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, whose vehicle was seized in proceedings under Section 129 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the seizure/release decision was taken, and whether the penalty order could be treated as a show cause notice for the limited purpose of seeking release of the truck.
Analysis: The seizure had resulted in adverse civil consequences for the transporter, while no notice or hearing had been granted to the petitioner before the vehicle was proceeded against. The Court noted that, though release of the vehicle was linked to deposit of the statutory amount under the proviso to Section 129(6), the petitioner should still be given an opportunity to explain that there was no connivance or active role on his part in the alleged illegality. The Court therefore permitted the petitioner to treat the penalty order as a show cause notice for the limited purpose of obtaining release of the truck, and required the authority to pass a reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to a hearing and a fresh consideration of the request for release of the truck, but not to unconditional release; the vehicle could be released only in accordance with the statutory procedure and on a reasoned decision by the authority.