Delhivery Limited vs State of U.P.

The petition in question contests an order issued by the department under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, dated 26.02.2023, directed towards Ajay Yadav. The crux of the petition lies in the assertion that the goods under consideration actually belong to the petitioner, despite the order being addressed to Yadav. The contention put forth is that although all necessary documents for the transit of goods were furnished, an inadvertent error occurred in recording the vehicle’s number on the transit document, leading to the initiation of the impugned action.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that since the order targets the driver, it precludes the cosigner or consignee from challenging it before the appropriate forum. However, it is acknowledged that the impugned order is appealable under the statute. Conversely, the Standing Counsel contends that the cosigner or consignee retains the right to challenge the order by asserting ownership of the goods through relevant documents. Any tax deposit would eventually be adjusted against the confiscated goods, hence the argument against the petitioner being deprived of the appeal remedy is deemed erroneous.

The respondents’ objections are deemed substantial, as they maintain that the cosigner or consignee can contest the confiscation of goods with supporting ownership documents, irrespective of the addressee of the order being the vehicle driver. Consequently, the petitioner retains the option to challenge the impugned order through an appeal, rendering a direct challenge via a writ petition unnecessary.

In light of the above, the court declines to entertain a direct challenge to the impugned order in the writ petition, leaving all legal and factual matters open for examination in the appropriate forum. The ruling, identified by Neutral Citation No. – 2023:AHC:86526-DB, dismisses the writ petition accordingly.

Download PDF:
Delhivery Limited

For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law