BrightRoad Logistics (P.) Ltd. VS Commercial Tax Officer, Bengalure

The court session commenced with Sri K.P. Kumar, a respected Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, and Sri S.V. Girikumar, the learned Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) representing the respondents.

Both sides agreed to proceed with final disposition of the case, citing its alignment with a previous order dated April 3, 2018, in the matter of Sri Raghavendra Traders vs. The Government of Karnataka, as noted in Writ Petition Numbers 13839/1028 and 13941/2018 (T-RES).

The petitioner, a transporter, had their goods intercepted and seized by the Commercial Tax Authorities during transportation. Following an adjudication process, the respondents imposed a tax liability of ₹2,16,146 along with a penalty.

In a recent court hearing, both sides were represented by experienced counsels: Sri K.P.Kumar for the petitioner and Sri S.V.Girikumar for the respondents.

The proceedings began with both parties agreeing to proceed with final disposal of the case, citing its similarity to a previous order dated April 3, 2018, in the case of Sri Raghavendra Traders vs. The Government of Karnataka.

The petitioner, a transporter, had their goods seized by the Commercial Tax Authorities during transportation. Subsequently, after adjudication, the respondents imposed a tax of 2,16,146/- along with a penalty of 23,29,896/- as per the impugned order dated April 26, 2018.

Sri K.P.Kumar, the petitioner’s counsel, referred to the aforementioned order in the case of Sri Raghavendra Traders and argued for the release of the vehicle and goods under similar conditions. He also requested permission for the petitioner to appeal against the impugned order within a reasonable timeframe.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the petitioner had not exhausted an alternative remedy available to them.

Referring to the precedent set in the Sri Raghavendra Traders case, the court directed that the goods and vehicle should be released by the respondents, subject to the payment of tax and a bank guarantee covering 50% of the penalty amount.

The court session involved the petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel Sri K.P. Kumar, and the respondents, represented by Sri S.V. Girikumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA). Both sides agreed to proceed with final disposal, citing the relevance of an earlier court order from April 3, 2018, concerning Sri Raghavendra Traders vs. The Government of Karnataka.

The petitioner, a transporter, had their goods seized by Commercial Tax Authorities during transportation. After adjudication, the respondents imposed a tax of 2,16,146/- and a penalty of 23,29,896/- through an order dated April 26, 2018 (Annexure-J).

Senior Counsel Sri K.P. Kumar, referencing the earlier case of Sri Raghavendra Traders, argued for the release of the vehicle and goods under similar terms. He proposed that the petitioner be allowed to challenge the impugned order in an appeal within a reasonable time.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the petitioner had not exhausted an alternative remedy available to them.

The court, recalling its decision in the Sri Raghavendra Traders case, had previously directed the release of the vehicle and goods, contingent upon the payment of tax and the provision of a bank guarantee covering 50% of the penalty.

Consequently, the court directed the respondents to release the goods and vehicle upon the petitioner paying the tax amount of 2,16,146/- and furnishing a bank guarantee covering 50% of the penalty amount of 23,29,896/-. This release was subject to the outcome of an appeal to be filed by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the court’s directive.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: