Md. Yusuf VS State Tax Officer

This intra-Court appeal revolves around an order dated 30th August 2022, concerning the case of WPA 18885 of 2022. At its core, the appellant contested a detention order issued on 10th August 2022 under Section 129(1) of both the CGST Act and WBGST Act. The appellant’s challenge stemmed from a belief that the detention was unjustified and should be subject to review.

In analyzing the situation, the learned Single Bench considered the written instructions provided by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of Investigation. These instructions led to the determination that the detention order was indeed appealable, providing the appellant with a route to contest the decision through the appropriate appellate channels. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant has brought the matter before a higher court, seeking redress.

Delving into the specifics of the detention order issued on 10th August 2022, it becomes apparent that several allegations were leveled against the appellant. Firstly, there was the accusation of a discrepancy between the goods purportedly in transit and the accompanying documentation. This misalignment raised suspicions regarding the legitimacy of the goods’ movement.

Secondly, the appellant faced allegations of securing registration under the WBGST Act through fraudulent means. This serious charge called into question the integrity of the appellant’s actions within the realm of tax compliance.

Furthermore, the detention order alleged that the tax invoices presented in support of the goods’ movement were fabricated and lacked the necessary legal foundation. This accusation not only impugned the authenticity of the documents but also cast doubt on the entire transactional process.

Additionally, the order contended that teak sawn timber had been transported clandestinely, without the requisite documentation, thereby contravening the stipulations outlined in Section 68 of the CGST Act 2017 and WBGST Act 2017, along with Section 138A thereof. This further compounded the legal complexities surrounding the detention.

In light of these allegations, the detaining authority reached a prima facie conclusion that the movement of the goods lacked the necessary documentation, prompting the decision to detain both the goods and the conveyance under the provisions of Section 129 of the GGST/SGST Act 2017.

Thus, the appeal before the higher court seeks to challenge the validity and justifiability of the detention order, aiming to secure a favorable outcome for the appellant amidst the intricate legal landscape of tax compliance and enforcement.

Mr. Shraff, the esteemed advocate representing the appellant, presented a comprehensive rebuttal against the allegations brought forth by the authorities. He adamantly contended that the appellant, as the rightful owner of the goods in question, meticulously adhered to the legal requirements by securing a transit permit issued by the Forest Department, accompanied by duly authorized invoices and an e-way bill. This meticulous adherence to regulatory protocols unequivocally establishes the legitimacy of the goods’ transportation.

Moreover, Mr. Shraff vehemently challenged the accusation that the appellant obtained registration under the Act through fraudulent means. He asserted that the appellant possesses substantial evidence to substantiate the lawful procurement of registration, supported by meticulously prepared and legally valid documentation. Despite the appellant’s diligence in adhering to legal protocols, the authority erroneously concluded that fraudulent means were employed, thereby casting unwarranted aspersions on the appellant’s integrity.

Additionally, Mr. Shraff underscored the critical fact that confiscation proceedings, which constitute a fundamental aspect of due process, have not yet been initiated. Despite the absence of such proceedings, the authorities have preemptively detained and seized the goods, a premature action that flagrantly disregards the appellant’s rights and procedural fairness.

By meticulously dissecting each allegation and highlighting the procedural irregularities surrounding the detention and seizure of the goods, Mr. Shraff endeavors to demonstrate the unjustifiability of the authorities’ actions. His impassioned defense seeks not only to exonerate the appellant from unfounded accusations but also to underscore the imperative of upholding due process and procedural fairness in all legal proceedings. In essence, Mr. Shraff’s exhaustive rebuttal underscores the appellant’s unwavering commitment to upholding the law and demands the rectification of the injustices perpetrated against them.

In response to Mr. Shraff’s arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Ghosh, the learned Government Counsel, presented a comprehensive rebuttal, addressing key points while providing a procedural pathway for resolution.

Mr. Ghosh began by highlighting the department’s ongoing challenge in identifying the true owner of the goods. This lack of clarity necessitated the creation of an ID in the driver’s name, Mani N, under whom all orders were logged. This procedural hurdle underscores the complexity of the case and the need for meticulous examination.

Regarding the detention of the goods, Mr. Ghosh stressed that confiscation proceedings have not yet commenced. Consequently, he argued that the appellant’s initial recourse should be to engage with the authority responsible for issuing the detention order. By doing so, the appellant can contest the allegations outlined in the detention order and seek its revocation.

Crucially, Mr. Ghosh outlined the appellant’s rights in this process, emphasizing their entitlement to present all relevant documentation to support their claims. This includes evidence demonstrating rightful ownership of the goods and the validity of the transportation process. Furthermore, the appellant must establish the legitimacy of the registration process through the submission of valid documentation.

To address concerns about the nature of the goods, Mr. Ghosh proposed a pragmatic solution. He suggested that the State Tax Authority should seek the opinion of the Forest Department by requesting an inspection of the detained goods by one of their officers. This collaborative approach would provide clarity on any discrepancies and facilitate a fair and transparent resolution.

In conclusion, Mr. Ghosh delineated a clear procedural pathway for the appellant to challenge the detention order and seek redress. By engaging with the relevant authority, presenting compelling evidence, and participating in a fair and transparent process, the appellant can navigate the complexities of the case and assert their rights within the framework of the law. This detailed response underscores Mr. Ghosh’s commitment to upholding procedural fairness and ensuring a just outcome for all parties involved.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: