Air Transport Corporation (Assam) (P.) Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh

In a legal proceeding, the court heard arguments from two primary parties. Sri Suyash Agarwal, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner, presented his case on behalf of his client. On the other side, Sri Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State. He was assisted by Sri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel, who also represented the interests of the State.

The hearing involved these legal representatives making their submissions and arguments before the court. Sri Suyash Agarwal, advocating for the petitioner, likely argued in favor of his client’s position, seeking a favorable outcome based on the legal and factual grounds of the case. In contrast, Sri Manish Goyal, supported by Sri C.B. Tripathi, defended the State’s stance, countering the petitioner’s arguments and justifying the actions or decisions being challenged in court.

The presence of high-ranking legal professionals such as the Additional Advocate General and Standing Counsel underscores the significance of the case, indicating that the issues at hand were of considerable importance, possibly involving complex legal questions or substantial public interest. The court would have considered the arguments and submissions from both sides before moving towards a decision or judgment.

The petitioner, represented by learned Counsel Sri Suyash Agarwal, has filed a writ petition challenging the legality of a notice dated November 22, 2017, and an order dated November 30, 2017, issued under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act. The notice and subsequent order, issued by Respondent No. 4, directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty that exceeds 50% of the value of the goods in question, which the petitioner argues is contrary to the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the penalty imposed is not in accordance with the law, specifically pointing out that Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act prescribes a penalty amounting to 50% of the value of the goods, excluding tax, or an equivalent amount to the tax due, whichever is higher. The notice and order in question, however, demand a penalty exceeding this statutory limit, which the petitioner contends is unlawful.

On the other hand, the State was represented by learned Additional Advocate General Sri Manish Goyal, assisted by Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, who defended the actions of Respondent No. 4, arguing that the notice and penalty imposed were justified under the circumstances.

The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the court to quash both the notice dated November 22, 2017, and the order dated November 30, 2017, on the grounds that they exceed the statutory authority granted under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act, and to prevent the enforcement of the penalty that the petitioner deems excessive and unlawful.

The petitioner in this case, represented by learned Counsel Sri Suyash Agarwal, filed a writ petition seeking relief against actions taken by the state authorities under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged a notice dated November 22, 2017, issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, as well as an order dated November 30, 2017, issued under the same section. The order directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty that exceeded 50% of the value of the goods, which the petitioner argued was contrary to the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act.

The petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash both the notice and the order. Additionally, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the release of the goods that were seized under a memo dated November 22, 2017. The petitioner offered to furnish security for the applicable tax and an additional penalty of 50% of the value of the goods, as reduced by the tax already paid, in accordance with Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act. The petitioner also requested the immediate release of the vehicle involved in the case.

The respondents in this case, represented by learned Additional Advocate General Sri Manish Goyal, assisted by learned Standing Counsel Sri C.B. Tripathi, argued on behalf of the state. The court heard the arguments from both sides before deciding on the relief sought by the petitioner.

In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks relief from the High Court against actions taken under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The case was presented by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while the State was represented by Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner challenges a notice dated November 22, 2017, issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, and the subsequent order dated November 30, 2017, passed under the same section. In this order, the respondent no. 4 directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty that exceeds 50% of the value of the goods, which the petitioner claims is contrary to Section 129(1)(b) of the Act.

The petitioner requests the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash both the notice and the order. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to release the seized goods, which were covered under a seizure memo dated November 22, 2017, upon furnishing security for the ‘applicable tax’ and an additional penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods as reduced by the tax paid thereon, in accordance with Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also seeks the release of the vehicle involved.

The court noted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Rule 109A of the Rules, which allows for filing an appeal against the order dated November 30, 2017.

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued on November 22, 2017, under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, and the subsequent order dated November 30, 2017, issued by the respondent. The petitioner contends that the order unlawfully directed them to deposit a penalty exceeding 50% of the value of the goods, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash both the notice and the order.

Additionally, the petitioner requests a writ of mandamus to compel the release of the seized goods and the vehicle involved, upon furnishing security for the applicable tax and an additional penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods, as reduced by the tax already paid, in accordance with Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Suyash Agarwal, and the State’s counsel, led by the Additional Advocate General, Sri Manish Goyal, and assisted by Sri C.B. Tripathi, presented their arguments. The State’s counsel informed the court that a statutory and efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 109A of the Rules. Notably, the appellate authority was constituted by the State on November 24, 2017.

Given this, the court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner files an appeal against the order dated November 30, 2017, within one week from the date of this order, the appeal shall be heard and decided in accordance with the law.

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging two primary issues. First, the petitioner sought the quashing of a notice dated November 22, 2017, issued under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017, and the subsequent order dated November 30, 2017, issued by Respondent No. 4. The order in question directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty exceeding 50% of the value of the goods, which the petitioner argued was contrary to Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act.

The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus, directing the release of the seized goods, as covered under the seizure memo dated November 22, 2017. The petitioner offered to furnish security for the applicable tax and an additional penalty of 50% of the value of the goods, minus the tax already paid, as stipulated under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner further sought the immediate release of the vehicle involved in the case.

The court noted that the petitioner has a statutory and effective alternative remedy available in the form of an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 109A of the Rules. The Additional Advocate General, representing the State, informed the court that an appellate authority had been constituted by the State on November 24, 2017.

Given this, the court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The court instructed that if the petitioner files an appeal against the order dated November 30, 2017, within one week, the appellate authority should hear and decide the appeal in accordance with the law within one month from the date of filing. Additionally, the court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner’s truck, bearing Registration No. U.P. 21 BN 5211, without requiring any security deposit from the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: