High Court stays penalty order, releases seized vehicles under U.P. GST ActDetention of vehicle with goods - Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already deposited the required tax of Rs. 64,400/- with penalty of a like amount which is evident from the payment receipt filed at page 36 of the writ petition and therefore he is not required to pay further penalty of Rs. 2,30,000/- as owner of the vehicle - Held that:- The matter requires consideration - List thereafter.... ... ... Issues: Quashing of order detaining vehicle and imposing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of U.P. GST Act.

Quashing of Detention Order:
The petitioners sought the quashing of the order dated 29.11.2018, which detained the vehicle of petitioner no.2. The learned counsel argued that the petitioner had already paid the required tax of Rs. 64,400 with a penalty of a similar amount, as evidenced by the payment receipt filed in the writ petition. It was contended that the petitioner should not be liable to pay an additional penalty of Rs. 2,30,000 as the owner of the vehicle. The court noted this contention for consideration and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a month for further evaluation.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of U.P. GST Act:
The petitioners also sought to challenge the order dated 07.12.2018, which demanded Rs. 2,30,000 against the petitioner under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act. The argument put forth was that since the required tax and penalty had already been paid, the provision of Section 129(1)(b) should not apply. The court acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of this matter. Pending further proceedings, the court ordered a stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 and directed the release of the seized vehicles and goods to the petitioners until the next listing date.

This judgment by the Allahabad High Court addressed the issues concerning the detention of a vehicle and the imposition of a penalty under the U.P. GST Act. The court considered the petitioner's argument regarding the payment of taxes and penalties and stayed the operation of the penalty order pending further proceedings. The case highlights the importance of proper legal procedures and the need for thorough evaluation of tax-related matters to ensure justice and fairness in such cases. Detention of vehicle with goods - Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act - contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already deposited the required tax of Rs. 64,400/- with penalty of a like amount which is evident from the payment receipt filed at page 36 of the writ petition and therefore he is not required to pay further penalty of Rs. 2,30,000/- as owner of the vehicle - Held that:- The matter requires consideration - List thereafter. M/s Prism Johnson Ltd. And Another Versus State Of UP And 2 Others
GST
2019 (1) TMI 947 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - 2019 (22) G. S. T. L. 335 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - HC
Dated:- 11-1-2019
Writ Tax No. - 1700 of 2018 - -
GST
B. Amit Sthalekar And Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan JJ. For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 29.11.2018 whereby the vehicle of the petitioner no.2 has been detained as well as order dated 07.12.2018 whereby a demand of Rs. 2,30,000/- has been made against the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act (In short "U.P. GST Act"). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already deposited the required tax of Rs. 64,400/- with penalty of a like amount which is evident from the payment receipt filed at page 36 of the writ petition and therefore he is not required to pay further penalty of Rs. 2,30,000/- as owner of the vehicle and Section 129(1)(b) of the 'U.P. GST Act' does not come into play in the matter. The matter requires consideration. The respondents may file their counter affidavit within a month. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing, it is directed that the operation of the impugned order dated 07.12.2018 shall remain stayed and the respondents shall also release the seized vehicles alongwith goods in favour of the petitioners.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders