P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

M/S Ashu Traders Madar Gate v. Union Of India And Others - (High Court of Allahabad) (24 Feb 2020)

Petitioner cannot get any relief, when there is non-disclosure of godowns and non-payment of tax which ultimately demonstrated misconduct

MANU/UP/0441/2020

Goods and Services Tax

The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is in respect of a seizure order dated 10th May, 2018, issued by the Respondent no. 4, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the goods of the writ Petitioner were seized. The writ Petitioner is not only challenging the seizure order dated 10th May, 2018, it is also praying for release of the seized goods.

As per Section 67 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods And Service Tax Act, 2017, where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorize in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things.

As per Rule 139 (1) of CGST, where the proper officer not below the rank of a Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that a place of business or any other place is to be visited for the purposes of inspection or search or, as the case may be, seizure in accordance with the provisions of Section 67, he shall issue an authorization in FORM GST INS-01 authorizing any other officer subordinate to him to conduct the inspection or search or, as the case may be, seizure of goods, documents, books or things liable to confiscation.

The facts, as revealed in the counter affidavit, clearly reflect upon the conduct of the writ petitioner post seizure of its goods. Till date, no TRAN-1 has been submitted by the writ Petitioner. The enquiry preceding seizure has revealed that the Petitioner has one declared godown and three undeclared godowns and stocks were also found at the undeclared godowns during seizure. As such, proceedings have been initiated under Section 67 (2) of the UPGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 139 (1) of the Rules, 2017.

It is noticed that consequent upon proceedings initiated by the concerned respondent authority, the writ petitioner never deposited any tax or penalty or bond or security, as required under Section 67 (6) of UPGST, 2017. Notices / summonses have been issued but no one appeared on behalf of the writ Petitioner on the date fixed. The stand of writ Petitioner in rejoinder affidavit is evasive and vague.

Present Court is unable to afford any relief to the writ petitioner by exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and stands accordingly dismissed.

Tags : SEIZED GOODS   RELEASE   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved