Bharat Lron Store VS Union of India  

In the legal proceedings, the court took into consideration the arguments presented by both the petitioner and the respondent. Shri J.P. Pandey, serving as the learned counsel for the petitioner, laid out the petitioner’s case in detail, arguing the points of law and facts that support their position. On the other side, Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, presented the defense, offering counterarguments to the claims made by the petitioner. The court carefully listened to the presentations from both sides, evaluating the legal arguments, evidence, and interpretations of the law as provided by the respective counsels. This stage in the proceedings is crucial as it allows the court to fully understand the positions of both parties before making any rulings or decisions on the matter at hand. The outcome will depend on how convincingly each side has made its case and the legal principles that the court finds most applicable to the situation.

In this legal matter, the court heard arguments from both sides. Shri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, presented the case on behalf of the petitioner, while Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel, represented the respondent.

The petitioner is seeking judicial intervention through a writ of certiorari, a legal remedy used to quash or set aside a lower court or administrative body’s decision. Specifically, the petitioner is challenging the validity of a seizure order dated January 3, 2018, which was issued by respondent numbers 3 and 4. The petitioner’s request is for the court to nullify this seizure order, arguing that it was improperly or unlawfully enacted.

The court has thus been called upon to review the circumstances under which the seizure order was issued and to determine whether the petitioner’s rights were violated, thereby justifying the quashing of the order. The hearing represents a crucial stage in this process, as both sides have now had the opportunity to present their legal arguments and interpretations of the relevant laws and facts surrounding the case.

In this case, the court has heard arguments from Shri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent. The petitioner has filed a writ of certiorari, requesting the court to quash the seizure order dated January 3, 2018, issued by respondent numbers 3 and 4.

The core issue revolves around the E-Way Bill related to the goods in question. According to the records presented, it appears that the E-Way Bill, which has been attached to the petition, was only downloaded on January 7, 2017—four days after the seizure of the goods. This discrepancy in the timing of the E-Way Bill’s generation and the seizure of the goods is central to the petitioner’s argument, as they challenge the legality and validity of the seizure order based on this timeline.

In this case, the court heard the arguments from Shri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent. The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari, which is a court order to review and potentially quash the seizure order issued by respondent numbers 3 and 4 on January 3, 2018.

The case hinges on the timing of the E-Way Bill, a crucial document in this matter. The records indicate that the E-Way Bill, which the petitioner included in the case file, was not downloaded until January 7, 2018—four days after the seizure of the goods in question took place. This discrepancy in dates is significant because the E-Way Bill is a document that should have been available at the time of transport to comply with legal requirements.

Following the seizure, a penalty order was issued on January 11, 2018, adding another layer to the dispute. The petitioner is challenging both the seizure and the subsequent penalty, arguing that the actions taken by the respondents were unjustified, particularly in light of the fact that the E-Way Bill was not available at the time of the seizure but was downloaded later.

The court is now tasked with examining the legitimacy of the seizure and the penalty order, taking into consideration the timing of the E-Way Bill and whether the respondents acted within their legal rights.

In this case, the court heard arguments from Shri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the seizure order dated January 3, 2018, issued by respondent nos. 3 and 4.

The court noted that the E-Way Bill, which is central to the case and attached to the petition, was downloaded on January 7, 2017, four days after the seizure occurred. Additionally, the court observed that a penalty order was subsequently issued on January 11, 2018.

Given these circumstances, the court highlighted that the petitioner has an equally effective remedy available by filing an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. This suggests that the court may view the appeal process as the appropriate course of action for the petitioner rather than issuing the writ of certiorari directly.

In this case, the court heard arguments from Shri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the seizure order dated January 3, 2018, issued by respondent numbers 3 and 4. Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the E-Way Bill, which was attached to the petition, was actually downloaded on January 7, 2017, four days after the seizure took place.

Additionally, a penalty order was issued on January 11, 2018. Given these facts, the court noted that the petitioner has an equally effective remedy available through the appeals process. Specifically, the petitioner can file an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The court indicated that the petitioner should pursue this statutory remedy rather than seek immediate judicial intervention. As a result, the court decided not to entertain the petition at this stage, leaving the petitioner to follow the available legal procedures.

The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to challenge a seizure order dated January 3, 2018, issued by the respondents, by filing a writ of certiorari. The petitioner contended that the seizure was improper, highlighting that the E-Way Bill, which was central to the case, was downloaded on January 7, 2017—four days after the seizure had already occurred. Additionally, a penalty order was passed against the petitioner on January 11, 2018.

Upon reviewing the case, the court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and equally effective remedy available under the law. Specifically, the petitioner could file an appeal against the penalty order under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. Given the availability of this statutory remedy, the court chose not to entertain the petition at this stage. The court emphasized that the petitioner should take recourse to the available legal remedies before seeking judicial intervention through a writ petition.

As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, thereby directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal channels provided under the existing legal framework.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law