seizure without issuing notice
Case Title | Tvt.LAF Enterprises vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Others. |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Anita Sumanth |
Citation | 2022 (6) GSTPanacea 269 HC Madras W.P.No. 14374 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 10-June-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Mr.J.Ashish |
Council for Respondent | Mr V.Prasanth Kiran |
Section | Section 129 of the CGST Act,2017. |
In Favour of | Favour of Assessee |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has held that detention and seizure of the vehicle be without notice & without following procedure of section 129.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner claims to have purchased iron scrap from various dealers and states that it was in the process of transporting the same from Guwahati to Coimbatore. On 29.05.2020, the vehicle carrying the consignment, bearing registration No.AP16 TE 0016 (vehicle in question) is stated to have suffered a mechanical difficulty as a result that the driver was forced to deviate from the planned route leading to the place of destination to identify a service shop for addressing the issue.
The vehicle had been stationed at the Sri Veeraragavar service station that night. On 30.05.2022 at 12.30 a.m. the vehicle was intercepted at Sholavaram by the Deputy Tax Officer, Roving Squad, who upon a perusal of the documents that the driver was carrying arrived at the conclusion that the goods were being re-routed without proper e-way bill.
The interception is justified by the respondent relying upon a statement of the driver that was adverse to the petitioner. However, and admittedly, a copy of the said statement has not been supplied to the petitioner.
seizure without issuing notice
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that no such notice has been issued till date though the seizure has been effected as early as on 30.05.2022.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the act of the respondent in insisting that the petitioner retain the vehicle at the present location is in gross contravention of the statutory provisions.
Mandamus as sought for is issued to R2 to release the conveyance in question along with the goods contained, forthwith and in any event, within 24 hours from today.
seizure without issuing notice
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
In law and on the clear language of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’), the impugned retention of the vehicle is clearly invalid. The provisions of Section 129 provide for the detention and seizure of the vehicle and contents upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure, and duly served upon the person transporting the goods.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: