Order of seizure of goods in transit passed u/s 129(1) of U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 not appealable and therefore, a writ petition is maintainable against it subject to the limitations of judicial review – Allahabad High Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2194 (2018) (02) HC
In the instant case, goods in transit were seized vide order passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the Act). The seizure order of seizure has been passed on two grounds that the goods were being transported from New Delhi and not from Ghaziabad as alleged. Secondly, the value of the goods has been suppressed and according to Kaccha bill found with the consignment, the value of the goods is much higher.
The assessee filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court challenging the seizure order.
The Revenue, however took a preliminary objection that against the order passed u/s 129(1) of the Act an appeal would lie under Section 107 of the Act and hence the writ is not maintainable.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that as per section 121 of the Act, the non-appealable orders relates to following matters:
(a) an order of the Commissioner or other authority empowered to direct transfer of proceedings from one officer to another officer; or
(b) an order pertaining to the seizure or retention of books of account, register and other documents; or
(c) an order sanctioning prosecution under this Act; or
(d) an order passed under Section 80.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that a simple reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that the legislature has not provided for any appeal against the order if any passed pertaining to the seizure.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the conjoint reading of Sections 107 and 121 of the Act it is apparent that though all orders passed under the Act by the adjudicating authority are appealable but not the one’s which have been specifically excluded from the purview of appeal under Section 121 of the Act such as orders pertaining to seizure.
In view of the fact that the order impugned was nothing but an order pertaining to seizure above, the Hon’ble High Court rejected the legal objection raised by the Revenue.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court held that the order of seizure of the goods in transit or storage passed under Section 129(1) of the Act is not appealable and therefore, a writ petition is maintainable against it subject to the limitations of judicial review.
Accordingly the writ was admitted.
Download Full Order Click Here >>
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…