Mkc Traders VS State of Uttar Pradesh

The case revolves around the seizure of goods belonging to the petitioners during transit due to the absence of accompanying tax invoices and E-Way Bills. Although the necessary documents were eventually produced by the petitioners, it was claimed that the driver had inadvertently left them behind. Following a show cause notice, the seized goods and the vehicle were directed to be released under Section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, contingent upon the petitioners depositing the applicable tax and penalty.

However, the petitioners argue that the order specifying the market value of the goods in the release directive is incorrect, resulting in an excessively high tax and penalty requirement. The court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, acknowledges its inability to ascertain the precise market value of the seized goods. Furthermore, it notes that the authority responsible for the goods’ release did not conclusively determine the market value; rather, it was a summary assessment for the specific purpose of facilitating release.

Given that the release of the seized goods is subject to certain conditions, the court finds no evidence of a miscarriage of justice warranting its intervention. Consequently, it deems the case unsuitable for interference regarding the conditions imposed for the goods’ release.

Sri Shubham Agarwal, serving as learned counsel for the petitioners, presumably presented these arguments before the court.

The petitioners’ goods (Supari) were seized during transit due to the absence of accompanying tax invoices and E-Way Bills. Subsequently, the documents were produced, stating they were left behind by mistake. The authorities directed the release of the goods and vehicle under Section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, upon the petitioners depositing applicable taxes and penalties.

The petitioners argued that the market value of the goods was inaccurately stated in the order, leading to an excessively high tax and penalty requirement. The court, however, found it unable to determine the market value and noted that the authority’s assessment was only provisional for releasing the goods, not a final valuation.

Given that the goods were ordered for release under certain conditions, the court deemed it unnecessary to interfere unless there was a miscarriage of justice. The counsel further requested the release of the transporter’s vehicle, stressing no allegations against them beyond the driver’s mistake.

Reviewing the seizure and release orders, the court found no involvement of the transporter in the transaction apart from the document mishap. Recognizing potential harm to the transporter’s business due to vehicle detention, the court ordered its immediate release to petitioner No.2 if the goods’ owner failed to meet release conditions.

Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of, with clarifications that observations in the order wouldn’t hinder regular proceedings concerning assessment or penalty adjudication.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: