Case Details: Cheminova India Ltd. Versus State of U.P. - (2025) 26 Centax 442 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Arun Bhansali, CJ. and Vikas Budhwar, J.
- S/Shri Nishant Mishra and Vedika Nath for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ankur Agarwal, S.C. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an assessee under the UPGST Act, 2017, was transporting goods when they were detained, leading to a demand of Rs. 92,28,444 under Section 129(3). The petitioner challenged this order, arguing lack of jurisdiction and unjustified demand. Initially, the petitioner offered a bank guarantee to secure the release of goods while contesting the demand before the Appellate Authority under Section 107, but the authorities rejected this offer. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that since new factual aspects were raised, they must be examined by the Appellate Authority under Section 107. The Court ruled that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy, making direct writ jurisdiction inappropriate. However, it allowed the release of the goods upon compliance with statutory provisions, including furnishing a bond and bank guarantee. Additionally, if the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, the bank guarantee was to remain uninvoked for two weeks, ensuring a fair opportunity to seek further legal recourse.
List of Cases Cited
- Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 — 2024 (83) G.S.T.L. 71/(2023) 11 Centax 162 (All.) — Referred [Para 2]
- Shamhu Saran Agarwal and Company v. Additional Commissioner — 2024 (2) TMI 187 — Referred [Para 2]
List of Circulars Cited
- Circular No.2018-19/230/1819010, Dated 09-05-2018
