Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, VINOD DIWAKAR
Adarsh Tobacco Co. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the seizure order based on the gst act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over classification of seized goods as perishable. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. requirement under law for release of perishable goods not met. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner may comply with law to address the seizure. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the seizure order dated 20th July, 2022, passed by the respondent no. 4, under section 67 of UPGST Act. A further prayer has been made to command the respondent no. 3 to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST having registration which is specified in para 3 of the writ petition. The petitioner has multiple godowns, one of which is at Etah. It transpires that a survey was made by the department on 20th July, 2022 and certain goods were found in the premises beyond the goods which were already disclosed by the assessee. Action was taken by the competent authority in terms of section 67 of the UPGST Act. Petitioner claims to have deposited the amount in terms of section 74 (5) of
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the assessee to invoke the provisions of the GST Act to seek release of the goods, as highlighted in relevant judgments.
Compliance with statutory provisions, specifically Section 67(6) of the Act and Rule 140 of the Rules, is necessary for the release of seized goods.
The court established that under Section 67(6) of the CGST Act, a bank guarantee is mandatory for the provisional release of seized goods.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of a show cause notice after the specified period does not invalidate the notice, and the court may reserve all rights and conten....
Petitioners must utilize alternative remedies available under the law before seeking judicial intervention.
A writ petition for the release of detained goods under GST laws cannot be entertained when alternative statutory remedies remain unexhausted.
The court emphasized the release of goods on specified conditions to secure the tax and impose the maximum possible penalty, considering the perishable nature of the goods and the stranded transport ....
The court affirmed the right to a hearing before the seizure of property, emphasizing the need for due process in administrative actions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
