HARI CARGO CARRIER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Two writ petitions were filed by the appellant / writ petitioner. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / writ petitioner does not dispute that the prayers in both the writ petitions are the same. The prayers made in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1967 of 2015 are as follows:

(2.) According to the appellant / writ petitioner, it is a carrier. It was entrusted with certain goods to be carried from Delhi. According to the appellant / writ petitioner, the goods are all subjected to tax under the CST. While the goods were being transported, the vehicles were detained by the authority under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). A show -cause was issued and the appellant / writ petitioner submitted its reply; but the appellant / writ petitioner has been asked to deposit the security amount for release of the goods. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) and, thereafter, alleging that the appellate Tribunal is not working, the writ petitions were filed. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the matter by relegating the appellant / writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal. It is against the same that the appeal is lodged. A single appeal is filed challenging the order passed in both the writ petitions by paying separate court fee.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / writ petitioner and Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State.