The Allahabad High Court while admitting the writ petition and granting the interim stay on the order passed by the proper officer held the State GST officers are not Adjudicating Authority.
The bench of justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit has observed that the order passed under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has been passed by the Proper Officer and not by the Adjudicating Authority, and accordingly, no appeal lies against the order under Section 107 of the Act. The appeals can lie only against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Table of Contents
Background
The Petitioner is the seller and buyer of the goods. The goods in transit were intercepted by the Respondent/department (Mobile Squad officer, Kanpur) and a penalty order was passed under Section 129 (3) of the UPGST Act/CGST Act.
Section 129 relates to the detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. Section 129(3) specifically deals with the proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order for payment of tax and penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c).
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Respondent/departmnet under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act/ CGST Act. The challenge is made on the ground that the State GST officers are not adjudicating authorities and have no right to pass the order. The order passed by the State GST officer is not appealable as the said authority is not an adjudicating authority.
Arguments
The petitioner contended that the order passed under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has been passed by the Proper Officer and not by the Adjudicating Authority.
The petitioner argued that no appeal lies against the said order under Section 107 of the Act, in which the appeals can lie only against the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The power to delegate adjudication is not available to the Commissioner as he himself is not an Adjudicating Authority.
Conclusion – State GST Officers Not Adjudicating Authority
The court noted that orders have already been passed under Section 129 (1)(A) and 129 (3) of the GST Act. The petitioner is willing to deposit security in accordance with law for release of his goods.
The court directed the respondent department to release the goods to the petitioner upon his furnishing bank guarantee as per Rule 140(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The goods should be released within a week from date on furnishing of bank guarantee by the petitioner.
The court listed the matter on 06/01/2025.
Read More: BOMBAY HIGH COURT QUASHES UNREASONED ORDER BLOCKING ITC LEDGER CITING CYRIL LASRADO JUDGEMENT
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Jai Shree Traders Versus State Of U.P.
Case No.: Writ Tax No. – 1731 Of 2024
Date: 17.10.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Adv. Sameer Gupta assisted by Adv. Ragini Gupta
Counsel For Respondent: C.S.C.
