Court dismisses petition as infructuous after authorities withdraw seizure and penalty notices.

Case Name:

Court No.: 32 Case: Writ Tax No. 628 of 2018

Petitioner: Surendra Steel Supply Company

Respondent: State Of U.P. And Another

Judges: Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J. and Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.

Key Takeaways:

- The authorities withdrew the seizure order under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act and the penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the Act. - With the withdrawal of these notices, the court found no cause of action surviving for the petitioner. - Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous (no longer having any practical significance). **Issue:** The issue initially raised in the petition was whether the seizure order and penalty notice issued for not carrying an e-way bill during the transportation of goods were valid. However, with the withdrawal of these notices by the authorities, the issue became moot. **Facts:** The State's Special Counsel, Sri C.B. Tripathi, produced before the court a copy of the order dated April 14, 2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-XI, Commercial Tax, Kanpur. This order withdrew the seizure notice under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act and the penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the Act. **Arguments:** No new arguments were presented in this part of the proceedings, as the authorities had already withdrawn the seizure and penalty notices. **Key Legal Precedents:** The court did not cite any specific legal precedents in this part of the case. **Judgement:** In view of the authorities withdrawing the seizure and penalty notices, the court found that no cause of action survived for the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous (no longer having any practical significance). **FAQs:** 1. **What was the court's decision in this part of the case?** The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner as infructuous. 2. **Why did the court dismiss the petition as infructuous?** The court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the authorities had withdrawn the seizure order and penalty notice challenged by the petitioner. With the withdrawal of these notices, the court found no cause of action surviving for the petitioner. 3. **What was the significance of the order produced by the State's Special Counsel?** The order produced by the State's Special Counsel, dated April 14, 2018, from the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-XI, Commercial Tax, Kanpur, withdrew the seizure notice under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act and the penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the Act. This withdrawal rendered the petitioner's challenge infructuous. 4. **What does "infructuous" mean in this context?** In this context, "infructuous" means that the writ petition no longer had any practical significance or purpose, as the authorities had already withdrawn the seizure and penalty notices challenged by the petitioner. 5. **What is the impact of this decision on the parties involved?** With the dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, the petitioner's challenge to the seizure and penalty notices became moot. The authorities' withdrawal of these notices effectively resolved the dispute, and the court did not have to adjudicate the merits of the case further.

Sri C.B.Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State has produced before us the copy of the order dated 14.4.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad-XI, Commercial Tax, Kanpur withdrawing the seizure notice under Section 129(1) of the U.P.GST Act and penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the Act, which is taken on record.

In view of above, no cause of action survives to the petitioner and the petition is rendered infructuous.

Writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous.

Order Date :- 16.4.2018