Delhivery Limited Vs State of U.P
Date: April 7, 2023
Subject Matter
Consigner/Consignee are at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods along with the supporting documents evidencing their ownership
Summary
The case is related to a petition against an order passed by the department under Section 129(3) of GST Act. The order was directed to Ajay Yadav but is being challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the goods belong to them and the vehicle's number was recorded incorrectly in the transit document. The petitioner's counsel argues that the order cannot be challenged by the consigner or consignee, but the standing counsel argues otherwise, stating that they can challenge it by providing documents proving ownership. The court agrees with the standing counsel and dismisses the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge the order through an appeal. All questions of law and fact will be examined at the appropriate forum.
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.