The present petition has been filed alleging that on 30th August, 2018, the respondent no. 2 passed a detention order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act. It is stated that on 4.2.2019, respondents had issued a demand notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 21,10,032/-. The petitioner claims that it is on this date that the petitioner became aware of the said demand and met the respondent requesting him to withdraw the demand notice as no demand exists and the goods have been released in pursuance to the orders passed by the High Court.

The petitioner thereafter was informed that an ex-parte order MOV-09 has been passed on 14.9.2018, whereby the demand has been quantified against the petitioner at ₹ 21,10,032/-. As the said order was served upon the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner, the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the said order.

The petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal against the said order dated 14.9.2018 on 3.5.2019. In the said appeal, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the appeal on account of delay alone by recording that it cannot be presumed that the service on the driver was not known to the appellant. It was further recorded that the date of communication as 4.2.2019 is not believable, as such the appeal was dismissed.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 23.9.2019, as the Tribunal envisaged under the Act has not been constituted and the petitioner claims that in the absence of such constitution, the petitioner cannot be left remedy less. He has placed strong reliance on the judgment dated 1.12.2020 passed by this Court in Writ Tax No. 661 of 2020 (M/S Singh Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade- 2 and 2 Others), wherein this Court had considered the scope of service of the order on the driver of the vehicle and held the same to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 169 of the Act.

In the present case also, the admitted fact is that the order was served upon the driver of the vehicle, which is not included in any mode of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act.

Consequently, the order dated 23.9.2019 is held to be erroneous and is set aside accordingly. It is directed that the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits, as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is allowed in terms of the said order.