Case Law Details
Delhivery Limited Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: The Allahabad High Court, in the case of Delhivery Limited Vs State of U.P, examined the rights of a consigner or consignee to challenge an order issued against the driver of a vehicle under the GST Act. The decision provides clarity on ownership disputes under the GST Act and the right of consigners and consignees to challenge confiscation orders.
Analysis: The petitioner, Delhivery Limited, challenged an order under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, claiming that the goods in question belonged to them. The order was originally issued to the driver of the vehicle, Ajay Yadav, due to a discrepancy in the vehicle’s number in the transit document.
The court found merit in the respondents’ argument that the consigner or consignee has the right to challenge the order by presenting documents proving their ownership of the goods. The court clarified that just because the order was issued to the driver, it does not prejudice the rights of the consigner or consignee.
The court’s decision clarifies that the consigner or consignee can challenge confiscation orders, establishing an important precedent for future cases where such disputes arise. It reaffirms the notion that all stakeholders have the right to contest orders that directly impact them under the GST Act.
The court’s decision underscores the right of consigners and consignees to challenge orders issued against the driver of a vehicle, reinforcing their rights and providing a more balanced framework for future disputes under the GST Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
This petition is directed against an order passed by the department under Section 129(3) of GST Act, dated 26.02.2023, addressed to one Ajay Yadav. This order is assailed on the ground that the goods in question belong to the petitioner. Submission is that though all other documents required for the transit of goods were accompanied, yet the vehicle’s number was wrongly recorded in the transit document, inadvertently, on account of which the impugned action is initiated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order impugned has been passed against the driver, it would not be open for the cosigner or the consignee to challenge such order before the appropriate forum. It is otherwise not disputed that the impugned order is appealable under the statute.
On the other hand, Learned Standing Counsel submits that the cosigner or the consignee can always challenge the impugned order claiming ownership of the goods on the basis of documents evidencing their ownership, and any deposit of tax would ultimately be adjusted against the confiscated goods. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner would be deprived of the remedy of appeal in such circumstances is misconceived.
We find substance in the objections raised by the respondents inasmuch as the cosigner or the consignee would always be at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods along with the supporting documents evidencing their ownership and merely because the order has been addressed to the driver of the vehicle would not be to the prejudice of the rights and contentions of the cosigner or the consignee.
In such circumstances, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order impugned by way of an appeal. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain a challenge to the order impugned directly in the writ petition. All questions of law and fact are left open for examination at the appropriate forum.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
