M/S Sk Trading Company vs. State Of U.P. And Another
(Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
M/S Sk Trading Company
Respondent
State Of U.P. And Another
Court
Allahabad High Court
State
Uttar Pradesh
Date
Dec 9, 2020
Order No.
Writ Tax No. – 707 of 2020
TR Citation
2020 (12) TR 3595
Related HSN Chapter/s
N/A
Related HSN Code
N/A

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The following relief has been sought by means of this writ petition :-

“(A). Issue writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 – Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-10, Kanpur to release of goods and truck detained vide detention order 07.11.2020 passed in Form GST MOV 06 in favour of the petitioner after getting the tax and penalty in cash/bank guarantee deposited u/s 129(1)(a) of the Act as provided u/s 67(6) of the Act read with Rule 140(1) of the Rules.”

It has been submitted that the petitioner is the consigner of the goods which have been seized and he is prepared to pay the tax and penalty in cash/bank guarantee as provided under Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 r/w Section 67(6) and Rule 140(1) of the Rules. It has also been submitted that the application filed by the petitioner in this regard has been dismissed, wrongly, holding the petitioner to be not entitled to get the goods released as he is not the owner thereof. It has been vehemently argued that this interpretation of Section 67(6) is not justified and is contrary to the provisions itself.

Sri Amit Manohar, who appears for the State respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Kay Pan Fragrance (P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 811 specifically paragraphs 4 and 10 of the said judgement. Paragraph 10 in fact quotes Section 67 of the Act and reliance has been placed by Sri Amit Manohar from subsection (6) of Section 67 which reads as follows :-

67(6). The goods so seized under sub-section (2) shall be released, on a provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, respectively, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be. ”

He has also submitted that the decision holds that goods are not liable to be released merely on payment of tax and penalty in cash/bank guarantee and therefore, the relief prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted.

During the course of arguments, it transpires that against the order rejecting petitioner’s application for release of goods an appeal under Section 107 has already been filed and the same is pending consideration.

Since the petitioner is already availing a statutory alternative remedy, this Court refuses to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation that appellate authority may decide the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible.

Sri Amit Manohar states that the next date fixed in the appeal is 14th December, 2020 and in case the appeal is in order and in case the petitioner co-operates, the appeal will be decided on the next date fixed or within a week thereafter.

Counsel for the parties may communicate this order to the respondents.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • m s sk trading company vs state of u p and another allahabad high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096