While granting an interim order to M/S Seth Prasad Agro Private Limited, the Allahabad High Court held that the seizure of goods under the Uttar Pradhesh Goods and Services Tax Act involving an inter-State transaction is valid under the new tax regime as the similar provision is provided in the Central GST and IGST Act.
The petitioner was manufacturer of of ‘Tasla’ which is categorised as an agricultural implement. The goods and vehicles of the petitioner were seized by the GST department while transporting the same from one State to another.
Before the Court, the counsels for the petitioners, Mr Aditya Bhushan Singhal,Mr Aditya Pandey,Mr Bipin Kumar Pandey contended that the goods were being transported from one State to another and as such the transaction was inter-state covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Hence, it is not liable to be seized under the U.P.G.S.T. Act.
Rejecting the submissions, the bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Saral Srivastava noted that the U.P.G.S.T Act makes provision for levy and collection of tax on intrastate supply of goods or services or both i.e. relating to transactions within the State, whereas IGST Act covers interstate transactions.
“In this view of the matter, the transaction in question is treated to be covered by the IGST Act and the provisions of U.P. G.S.T. Act would not apply. However, a similar provision as Section 129 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act exists in the Central G.S.T. Act as well. Section 20 of the IGST Act provides that the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act would apply in respect of matters of inspection, search, seizure and arrest to the matters covered by the IGST Act. In other words, in the matter of seizure under the provisions of IGST Act the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act such as Section 129 would apply mutatis mutandis.”
“In this way the power of seizure under the IGST Act read with Central G.S.T. Act is analogues to that under Section 129 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act. In view of above, the impugned order of seizure cannot be held to be bad in law only for the reason that the wrong provision of Act has been mentioned while passing the same as the power of seizure is clearly traceable under the relevant Act as well.”
The bench further held that the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
