MUNDKAR MADHAVARAYA PRABHU VS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

The petitioner in this case has filed a petition seeking various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, they request the court to issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ to quash and set aside two orders, namely No.09/2022-23 and No.10/2022-23, both dated 09.11.2022, passed by respondent No.2 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. These orders are attached as Annexure-A and Annexure-B to the petition.

Secondly, the petitioner urges the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any suitable writ directing respondent No.2 to immediately release the Conveyance No.GJ-03-AX-7785 and GJ-03-BY-8577, along with the goods contained therein, without imposing any penalty, security, or bond requirement.

Thirdly, the petitioner seeks an order setting aside the demand for penalty, which amounts to Rs.2,60,272/- under Section 129(1)(a) or Rs.26,02,724/- under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. This demand pertains to Form GST MOV-09 bearing No. 09/2022-23 dated 09.11.2022, as listed in Annexure-A to the petition.

In essence, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to overturn certain actions taken by respondent No.2 under the CGST Act, 2017, regarding the seizure of goods and imposition of penalties, emphasizing procedural irregularities or legal errors in the said actions.

The petitioner in this case has filed a petition seeking multiple reliefs from the court:

9. They request the issuance of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, to quash and set aside two orders (No.09/2022-23 and No.10/2022-23 dated 09.11.2022) passed by respondent No.2 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

10. b They ask for a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order, directing respondent No.2 to release two conveyances (Conveyance No.GJ-03-AX-7785 and GJ-03-BY-8577) and the goods therein without requiring any penalty or security bond.

11. They seek to set aside a penalty demand of Rs.2,60,272/- or Rs.26,02,724/- under Section 129(1)(a) or (b) respectively, in relation to the first impugned order (Form GST MOV-09 No.09/2022-23).

12. They also request setting aside a penalty demand of Rs.3,19,261/- or Rs.31,92,614/- under Section 129(1)(a) or (b) respectively, in relation to the second impugned order (Form GST MOV-09 No.10/2022-23).

13. They argue that due to the absence of jurisdictional facts specified under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.

14. They assert that they haven’t violated Section 31(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, or rule 46 (h) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and therefore, the goods should not have been detained.

15. Lastly, they request any further orders or reliefs deemed necessary by the court based on the nature and circumstances of the case.

The court has heard arguments from both parties and examined the evidence on record. While both sides have presented various contentions, the court is now considering the available remedies.

The petitioner in this case sought multiple reliefs through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These included quashing and setting aside two orders (No. 09/2022-23 and No. 10/2022-23) passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, directing the release of specific conveyances and goods without payment of penalty or security, setting aside penalty demands under different sections of the CGST Act, 2017, and asserting that the impugned orders lacked jurisdiction and that the petitioner hadn’t violated relevant provisions.

After hearing both parties’ arguments and examining the evidence, the court noted the availability of alternative remedies through appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the arguments presented, the court decided to dispose of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue available legal remedies, including appealing to the First Appellate Authority.

Regarding the release of goods, considering their perishable nature and the specific circumstances of the case, the court directed the respondents to release the specified conveyances and goods within 48 hours from the receipt of the court’s order.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that its decision in this case should not be considered a precedent and should not hold any precedential value for future cases.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: