Case Title | Asp Traders vs State of U.P and 2 others. |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & Justice Jayant Banerji |
Citation | Writ Tax No 955 of 2022 2022 (7) GSTPanacea 131 HC Allahabad |
Judgement Date | 18-July-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Rahul Agarwal |
Council for Respondent | C.S.C Awasthi |
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & Justice Jayant Banerji has held that order in form GST DRC-05 be consider proceedings concluded in terms of mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 129.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner is a consignor of certain goods. While the goods were being transported through vehicle no. UP 78 GN 7563 under invoice no. 15 dated 14.1.2022, valued at Rs. 51,72,930/- and e-Way bill no. 141424463403, it was intercepted by the respondent no. 3 on 17.1.2022 and the goods were detained The statement of driver of the vehicle was recorded in form GST MOV-01 followed by physical inspection of the goods and issuance of form GST MOV-04 on 20.1.2022. Certain discrepancies were found by the respondent no.
3 which gave rise to issuance of detention order dated 20.1.2022 in form GST MOV-06, which was followed by a notice dated 21.1.2022 under Section 129(3) of the CGST, 2017 read with IGST Act, fixing date for 28.1.2022.
in the meantime, although the petitioner submitted a reply, but immediately thereafter, on his own, deposited the sum demanded in the notice under Section 129(3) amounting to Rs. 7,20,440/- in form GST DRC-03.
Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 issued an order dated 27.1.2022 in GST MOV-05 and released the goods and vehicle
Court Held
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the respondent has issued an order in form GST DRC-05.
Thus, proceedings in respect of the aforesaid notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act stood concluded in terms of mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 129.
Hence, relief sought by the petitioner that a copy of the order under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST, Act be provided to him, is wholly misconceived cannot be granted since the matter is concluded as per legislative mandate.
Analysis of the Judgement
Admittedly a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner deposited the amount on his own in form GST DRC-03 and intimated it to the respondent no. 3. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 has issued an order in form GST DRC-05. Thus, proceedings in respect of the aforesaid notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act stood concluded in terms of mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 129. Hence, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted since the matter is concluded as per legislative mandate.
Download PDF
For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court