https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401945 The High Court admitted the writ petition due to the absence of the GST Tribunal, allowing judicial intervention as the petitioner was unable to appeal to the designated tribunal. The petitioner had paid the mandatory court fee under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted respondents four weeks to present objections, with an additional week for the petitioner to reply. The petitioner's goods, including a Truck, were ordered to be released immediately upon depositing security equal to the tax and penalty value, ensuring revenue protection while facilitating the release of goods during legal proceedings. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401945 The High Court admitted the writ petition due to the absence of the GST Tribunal, allowing judicial intervention as the petitioner was unable to appeal to the designated tribunal. The petitioner had paid the mandatory court fee under Section 112 of The Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted respondents four weeks to present objections, with an additional week for the petitioner to reply. The petitioner's goods, including a Truck, were ordered to be released immediately upon depositing security equal to the tax and penalty value, ensuring revenue protection while facilitating the release of goods during legal proceedings. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401945