Heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jagdish Mishra, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 2.

The impugned order is the one dated 18.10.2021 passed by respondent no. 1-Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)- 6, State Tax, Kanpur in Appeal No. GST/93/2021 pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 under the provisions of Section 129 (3) of the IGST/CGST Act.

A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the appellant before the Appellate Authority was held to be the owner of the goods and so the tax and penalty was determined under Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act, which was required to be paid for release of the conveyance and goods.

Shri Mathur, learned counsel has stated that since the Tribunal has not yet been constituted in the State of U.P., so this writ petition has been preferred. He has contended that it is the free will of the supplier of goods to determine the price at which he wishes to sell his goods and there is no embargo on such pricing in the Act. It is stated that the E-way bill was not made due to the value of the goods being less than ₹ 50,000/- and the allegation of under invoicing is bad and baseless.

On the other hand Shri Jagdish Mishra has referred to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act read with Explanation No. 2 of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, to contend that the assessment done by the authority under the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) is justified.

The matter requires consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit. One week thereafter is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.

However, giving the circumstances of the present case, I do not find it fit to issue an interim order at this stage.

For want of a counter affidavit within the time specified, appropriate interim orders may be passed by the Court.