Vikram Solar (P.) Ltd VS Union Of India

In the legal proceedings before the court, Shri R.R. Kapoor, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, presented their arguments and positions. Shri Kapoor, acting on behalf of the petitioner, elaborated on the case’s merits, highlighting the specific grievances and legal claims made by the petitioner. He meticulously detailed the facts and legal basis for the petition, aiming to substantiate the request for relief sought by the petitioner. His role involved addressing the court with a comprehensive presentation of the petitioner’s argument, ensuring that all relevant evidence and legal precedents were thoroughly examined to support the petitioner’s case.

Conversely, Shri Tripathi, representing the respondent, focused on defending against the petitioner’s claims. As the Standing Counsel, his responsibility was to counter the arguments made by Shri Kapoor by providing a robust defense of the respondent’s actions or decisions. This included presenting counter-evidence, legal arguments, and precedents that would demonstrate the legitimacy of the respondent’s position and refute the petitioner’s claims. Shri Tripathi aimed to convince the court that the respondent’s actions were in accordance with the law and that the petitioner’s claims were either unjustified or legally unsupported.

The hearing was thus an in-depth examination of both parties’ arguments, with the court carefully considering the evidence and legal arguments presented by both counsels. The objective was to determine the validity of the petitioner’s claims and the appropriateness of the respondent’s actions, with the court expected to deliver a judgment based on the comprehensive analysis of the submissions made by Shri Kapoor and Shri Tripathi.

The case at hand involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge a seizure order and a consequential notice both dated December 16, 2017. Shri R.R. Kapoor is representing the petitioner as their learned counsel, while Shri C.B. Tripathi serves as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The seizure order in question was issued under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act (referred to as ‘the Act’), which pertains to the power of authorities to seize goods and conveyances involved in the transportation of goods that are either not accompanied by prescribed documents or are suspected to be in contravention of the Act’s provisions. Alongside this, a consequential notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the same Act, which deals with the procedure following the seizure, including the determination of penalties and further actions to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner’s challenge focuses on disputing the legality and appropriateness of these actions taken by the authorities under the Act. The writ petition aims to contest the validity of the seizure order and the notice, arguing that they were issued improperly or in violation of the petitioner’s rights or statutory provisions. The proceedings involve a detailed examination of the facts leading to the seizure, the legality of the actions taken under the U.P. GST Act, and the implications for the petitioner.

In this case, the court reviewed the arguments presented by Shri R.R. Kapoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent. The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging two specific administrative actions: a seizure order and a consequential notice, both dated December 16, 2017. These actions were taken under the U.P. GST Act, with the seizure order issued under Section 129(1) and the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act.

The basis for the seizure of the petitioner’s goods was the alleged failure to download the requisite E-Way Bill, a mandatory document under the Goods and Services Tax regime intended to track the movement of goods and ensure compliance with tax regulations. The E-Way Bill is crucial for the legal transportation of goods, and its absence can trigger enforcement actions such as the seizure of the goods being transported.

However, it has been established on record that the petitioner encountered technical difficulties in downloading the E-Way Bill before the seizure occurred. These issues with the digital system or platform were beyond the petitioner’s control and impeded their ability to comply with the requirement in a timely manner. Despite these extenuating circumstances, the enforcement authorities proceeded with the seizure of the goods based on the non-compliance with the E-Way Bill mandate.

Furthermore, it is important to note that as of the current proceedings, no penalty order has been issued against the petitioner. This means that while the goods were seized due to the E-Way Bill issue, the formal process of imposing a financial penalty for the alleged non-compliance has not yet been completed. The absence of a penalty order suggests that the matter is still under consideration or that the administrative process is incomplete.

The petitioner, who is engaged in the trading of P.V. Solar Modules and other similar products, asserts that all their goods are properly accounted for. These items are legitimate and traceable within the petitioner’s business operations. The goods in question were being transported from West Bengal to Ghaziabad when the seizure took place. This transportation route and the nature of the goods are critical to understanding the context of the seizure.

In summary, the petitioner challenges the legality and appropriateness of the seizure and the notice issued, arguing that the technical issues with the E-Way Bill download should be considered as a mitigating factor. The case involves examining the adherence to procedural requirements and the fairness of enforcement actions taken under the GST regime, particularly in light of the technical difficulties faced by the petitioner and the lack of a penalty order.

The present case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the seizure of goods and related procedural orders issued under the U.P. GST Act. The core issue leading to the seizure was the alleged non-compliance with the requirement to download an E-Way Bill. According to the seizure order dated December 16, 2017, the failure to provide a downloaded E-Way Bill was cited as the primary reason for the action taken. However, the petitioner has presented evidence indicating that there was a technical problem with downloading the E-Way Bill before the seizure occurred, which may have contributed to the non-compliance.

The seizure order, as well as the consequential notice dated December 16, 2017, issued under Section 129(3) of the Act, forms the crux of the petitioner’s grievance. Despite the seizure, no penalty order has yet been issued against the petitioner, which suggests that the administrative process is still ongoing or incomplete.

The petitioner is involved in the business of trading P.V. Solar Modules and related goods, all of which are properly accounted for. The goods in question were being transported from West Bengal to Ghaziabad at the time of the seizure. This indicates that the goods are part of a legitimate commercial transaction and raises questions about the appropriateness of the seizure in light of the claimed technical issue with the E-Way Bill.

To facilitate the release of the seized goods and the petitioner’s vehicle, a bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the tax on the goods has been proposed as a condition. The court, in this instance, has suggested that upon the deposit of this bank guarantee, the petitioner’s vehicle and the seized goods should be released without further delay. This condition aims to balance the interests of the petitioner with the regulatory requirements of the GST Act, ensuring that the goods are returned while securing the tax amount in dispute.

Overall, the summary highlights the procedural and substantive issues surrounding the seizure of goods, the technical difficulties experienced by the petitioner, and the interim relief conditions proposed to address the immediate impact of the seizure.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law