2018 Taxo.online 129
WRIT TAX No. – 683 of 2018 dated 23.04.2018
M/s UJALA MARKETING AND 2 OTHERS
UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
2018
GST
Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017
129
Krishna Murari, Justice & Ashok Kumar, Justice
In favour of revenue
High Court
Allahabad
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Naveen Chandra Gupta
Respondent: – A.S.G.I., C.S.C.
Order: –
Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi, learned standing counsel.
The instant writ petition has been filed by three petitioners who are situated at Delhi. The petitioners challenges the seizure order dated 12.4.2018 and the consequential penalty proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act. The petitioners further prayed for release of the vehicle along with the goods which are seized by the respondent no.4. Admittedly, the goods seized in question are sold to various parties who are not registered with the UPGST Authorities. The details of the purchasers/buyers situated at different places in Kanpur are incomplete, as has been mentioned both in invoices as well as in goods receipt.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly accepted that all the purchasers/buyers situated at Kanpur are unregistered. The identity of buyers is completely doubtful. The respondent no.4 has proceeded to initiate the proceedings under Section 129(1) of UPGST after detaining the goods and vehicle on 12.4.2018 by clearly mentioning the documents which are produced by the truck driver and further has reached to the conclusion that the goods mentioned in the invoices and G.Rs. are ‘PARCHUN GOODS’. ‘PARCHUN GOODS’ means several kind of loose items booked for transportation without giving the details of the same in the accompanying documents. The respondent no.4 has noticed, from the perusal of the documents accompanying the goods, that the goods are imported from outside of the State of U.P. within the State of U.P. without complying the provisions of law as such he has reached to the conclusion that the goods are imported for the purposes of evasion of tax.
There are several disputed question of facts involved in the present writ petition and in our opinion the same can be appropriately adjudicated by the authorities including the appellate authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the impugned order is appealable.
In view of the aforesaid facts and upon the facts and circumstances of the present case we have no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/appellate authority in accordance with law and raise their grievances before the appropriate forum/appellate authority, so as advised.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
