Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the UP GST Authority.

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 24.08.2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as to the ‘Act’).

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the true owner of the goods that have been seized. Those goods had been purchased by the petitioner from a dealer M/s N.K. Traders at Saran (Bihar). While the goods were being transported to the petitioner, they were intercepted by the authorities under the Act, at Meerut, on 13.08.2021.

Undisputedly, show cause notice was issued on 17.08.2021 calling for a reply by 23.08.2021. While the petitioner claims to have submitted his written reply on 23.08.2021, he further claims to have deposited ₹ 1,37,232/- through on-line mode on 23.08.2021 itself being amount equivalent to the tax payable on the goods detained and the penalty calculated at the rate equal to tax. Proof of that payment has been annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

In such cirumstances, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 has grossly erred in not taking cognizance of the claim made by the petitioner and in reaching a conclusion that the detained goods were not traceable to any bona-fide owner. Therefore, the demand made under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act is stated to be wholly illegal.

While Shri C.B. Tripathi would contend that the goods are not traceable to a bona-fide owner at the same time, in the facts of the present case, it does appear that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 had been passed without consideration of the petitioner’s claim to ownership over the goods in question. Conclusion that may have been drawn contrary to the claim of the petitioner is exparte. At the same time, there is evidence of the petitioner (claiming as owner) having deposited the amount of ₹ 1,37,232/- on 23.08.2021 which was the date fixed in the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 17.08.2021 issued under Section 129(3) of the Act.

In such circumstances, the order dated 24.08.2021 cannot stand, as the same appears to have been passed ex-parte against the petitioner without consideration of his claim. The order dated 24.08.2021 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.

The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner claim over the goods. the petitioner shall appear before the respondent no. 2 on 13.10.2021. The said authority shall pass an appropriate order within a period of one week therefrom.

All consequential proceedings shall abide by the order passed by the said authority, in compliance of this order.