Case Law Details
Rimjhim Ispat Limited Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Coming to the question of the validity of the confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the UPGST Act and challenged by the petitioner by means of an amendment application filed. The perusal of the said confiscation order (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) reveals that the said order has been passed ex parte, it is observed in the said order that notices were sent to the petitioner, however, initially the petitioner took a stand that the matter is pending with regard to the validity of the search and seizure before the High Court and prayed that the adjudication on the question of confiscation be adjourned till the decision is rendered by the High Court, however, respondent authorities held that despite opportunities being granted no defence has been filed to the proposed confiscation and, secondly, that there was no stay order passed by the High Court and thus on these two basis proceeded to pass the order of confiscation. Section 130 of the Act confers the power to confiscate the goods, however, Section 130(4) clearly provides that opportunity of hearing shall be granted prior to passing the order on confiscation. In the present case, the petitioner had informed the authorities concerned to defer the adjudication on confiscation because the issue of validity of the search was engaging the attention of the High Court, we are of the view that despite the fact that there was no stay order restraining the respondents from passing the confiscation order but in all fairness as the hearing was going on at the High Court, the respondent authorities should have awaited the outcome of the challenge made to the search by the petitioner.
Considering the view that we have now rejected the challenge by the petitioner to the search, we are inclined to quash the order dated 29.10.2018, passed by respondent no. 4, Assistant Commissioner, (SIB) Region-B, Commercial Tax(GST), Kanpur and remand the matter before the said authority to adjudicate on the question of confiscation afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in terms of the mandate cast by virtue of Section 130(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017, in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Since the controversy and facts involved in the aforesaid connected writ petitions are the same, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order with the consent of the parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
