Case Law Details
HDB Financial Services Limited Vs State of U.P. and 2 others (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by HDB Financial Services Limited challenging a penalty of ₹5,40,000 imposed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The penalty was levied after authorities detained a vehicle carrying a Pokland Machine, which the petitioner claimed was being transported to its parking yard in Varanasi due to non-payment by the borrower, in accordance with an arbitration award. The petitioner argued that since the goods were merely being shifted to their yard, there was no requirement for an e-way bill, making the penalty unjustified. However, the authorities rejected this claim, leading the petitioner to approach the court.
The court found that the petitioner failed to assert ownership of the goods within the 15-day period following the penalty order. Additionally, the delay in filing the writ petition, along with a lack of substantive engagement, raised doubts about the petitioner’s claims. Given that an alternative remedy was available through an appeal, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, with the court advising the petitioner to seek redress through an appeal under the Limitation Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the respondents under Section 129(3) of the GST Act imposing a penalty of Rs. 5, 40,000/-.
2. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner claims that the goods in question, were being moved by the petitioner to its parking yard at Varanasi as the borrower, had failed to make payment in terms of the arbitration award, however, the vehicle carrying the goods and the goods were detained and penalty imposed where after, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner seeking ownership of the goods in question, based on passing of the award and hypothecation of vehicle, was rejected by the respondents. The writ petition was filed on 21.10.2024 and has remained pending and has come up before the Court for the first time on 26.11.2024, when none appeared, whereafter the matter has come up today.
3. Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner seeking to question the validity of the order passed on account of the fact that the vehicle was moving the goods to its parking yard only and, therefore, there was no necessity to carry e-way bill and consequently, passing of the order impugned under Section 129(3) of the Act, was not justified.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the plea sought to be raised appears to be an afterthought inasmuch as the vehicle was detained on 02.07.2024 and the order impugned was passed on 18.07.2024, in between, no plea seeking ownership of the goods was raised by the petitioner. Whereafter also, despite being aware of the passing of the order dated 18.07.2024, a cursory email titling the same as GST appeal was sent on 06.09.2024 and, as noticed, the petition has been filed on 21.10.2024.
5. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has remedy of filing an appeal against the order impugned and as the matter remained pending before this Court, with the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal can still be maintained.
6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. The plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the transfer of the goods, a Pokland Machine, to its parking yard at Varanasi, needs investigation inasmuch as the conduct as projected by counsel for the respondents and which is not denied, despite the fact that petitioner had full 15 days to claim the ownership of the goods, no steps were taken and thereafter also the matter has been dealt with casually, the assertions made in the petition cannot be taken at face value.
8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal with the aid of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as indicated by counsel for the respondents.
Author Bio
