Corp Mediteche Private Limited VS The State Of Uttar Pradesh

The proceedings of the case involve several key points and arguments presented by both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Standing Counsel. Initially, the petitioner’s counsel has been granted permission to include the Union of India and the GST Council as respondents in the case.

During the hearing, arguments were heard from both sides. The petitioner’s counsel, Sri Nishant Mishra, contended that the entirety of the seizure proceedings lacked validity and was conducted without proper legal authority. He emphasized the importance of adhering to government orders and prescribed forms in such proceedings, including those related to the seizure and detention of vehicles.

Further, it was argued that since the transaction in question was an inter-state one, any proceedings conducted under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UP GST) Act were deemed illegal. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that although the impugned order could be appealed under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act before the Tribunal, the absence of such a tribunal for over a year and a half compelled them to challenge the proceedings under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Upon examining the pleadings and supporting documents, the court found merit in the petitioner’s counsel’s argument. It was observed that the failure to download part-B of the E-way bill, despite the E-way bill itself being downloaded on May 21, 2018, appeared to be a human error on the part of the transporter or the person in charge of the vehicle. When the vehicle was detained on May 22, 2018, at 03:30 am, the necessary tax invoice and accompanying documents were provided by the driver. It was explained that the driver was unaware of the requirement to download part-B of the E-way bill, but subsequently did so on the same day at 10:56 am. Despite this, the detaining authority proceeded to seize the goods and issue a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.

These arguments and observations underscore the complexity and procedural intricacies involved in the case, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of both legal and factual aspects before reaching a conclusion.

The petitioner has responded to the show cause notice, asserting that there was no ill intention behind the transportation of goods and that they were not intended for sale within the state of Uttar Pradesh. Instead, the goods were destined for supply to medical colleges located in Madhya Pradesh, with all relevant details duly documented, including the identity of the purchaser medical college, HLL Infra Tech Services Ltd. (a subsidiary of HLL Lifecare Ltd., a Government of India Enterprise).

The petitioner’s counsel highlights that no discrepancies were identified or noted by the detaining authority prior to issuing the order under Section 129(3) of the Act, demanding payment of Rs. 27,54,681/- along with an equivalent penalty for the release of the seized goods and vehicles.

Initially, the petitioner challenged the seizure proceedings and penalty through Writ Petition No. 870 of 2018. However, due to the writ petition not being heard, the petitioner was compelled to appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Mathura. The impugned order from the Additional Commissioner affirmed the seizure and penalty.

Subsequently, the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17.07.2018. Inquiries made by the court regarding the establishment of a tribunal revealed that no such tribunal had been established. Despite previous requests made by the court for the formation of the tribunal during earlier writ petitions concerning seizure proceedings, no action has been taken by the concerned authority to establish it.

This situation is now becoming increasingly problematic, as the absence of the tribunal means parties are forced to approach the court unnecessarily. If the tribunal were established, parties could easily appeal under Section 112 of the Act, streamlining the legal process and reducing the burden on the court system. This underscores the urgency and importance of establishing the tribunal as per the court’s previous directives.

The court has issued notices to the newly added respondent nos. 3 and 4, namely the Union of India and the Goods & Service Tax Council, instructing them to explain why previous orders of the court have not been complied with and why the statutory tribunal has not been established thus far. The respondents are given a deadline of two weeks to provide this explanation.

The court refers to Section 113 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, which outlines the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Tribunal, and Section 114, which delineates the financial and administrative powers of the President of the Appellate Tribunal. Section 117 of the Act specifies that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the State Bench or area Benches of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court.

It is emphasized that the High Court’s involvement is contingent upon decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal or orders issued by it. However, due to the non-establishment of the Appellate Tribunal in this case, aggrieved parties are resorting to the High Court. The court urges the respondents to expedite proceedings in this matter.

Considering that the petitioner is a registered company and the purchaser is a Government of India Enterprise, the court deems it appropriate to safeguard the interests of both parties. Thus, the following orders are issued:

1. The goods are to be released upon furnishing an indemnity bond equivalent to the value of tax only, excluding the penalty amount specified in the impugned seizure order under Section 129(3).
2. The seized goods and vehicle are to be released immediately.
3. The petitioner is allowed to download a fresh E-way bill promptly after the release of the goods and vehicle.
4. The goods and vehicle are permitted to proceed to their onward journey, and upon delivery of the goods, the petitioner must furnish the required certificate demonstrating the delivery at the purchaser’s location.

The petition is scheduled for listing on 16th August, 2018. Additionally, copies of the writ petition are to be provided to the legal counsel representing the newly added respondents.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Law:

GST Case Law: