BISWANATH SOMADDER,AJAY BHANOT,J. - (1.) The order dated 4th December, 2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Mughalsarai Unit, Chandauli is taken in the record.
(2.) By the order dated 4th December, 2019, the petitioner was required to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of his liability determined under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at the time of seizure of goods and conveyance in transit.
(3.) It is a subsequent development, which this Court has taken into cognizance for a just adjudication of the controversy. The order dated 4th December, 2019 has been passed in purported compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd reported in [2019] 71 NTNDX 409 (SC). The operative portion of the said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is set forth hereunder: "In our opinion, therefore, the orders passed by the High Court which are contrary to the stated provisions shall not be given effect to by the authorities. Instead, the authorities shall process the claims of the concerned assessee afresh as per the express stipulations in section 67 of the Act read with the relevant rules in that regard. In terms of this order, the competent authority shall call upon every assessee to complete the formality strictly as per the requirements of the stated provisions disregarding the order passed by the High Court in his case, if the same deviates from the statutory compliances. That be done within four weeks without any exception.";