Sri Mani Transports VS State Tax Officer

In this case, Mr. R. Senniappan, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Haribabu, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the sole respondent, are appearing before the court.

The matter at hand involves a writ petition challenging a notice dated July 30, 2019, issued by the respondent under Section 68(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act). This notice is referred to as the “impugned notice.”

The writ petition raises issues related to the enforcement of tax and penalty provisions under the TNGST Act. Specifically, Section 129(1)(b) of the Act provides that if a transporter pays the applicable tax and a penalty amounting to 50% of the value of the goods, the vehicle and consignment should be released. However, in this case, the respondent is alleged to have collected the entire tax liability, including penalties, from the petitioner, despite the petitioner presenting evidence of having already paid the full tax liability.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the entire tax and penalty were collected under duress, although the petitioner had complied with the provisions by showing proof of tax payment. The respondent’s action is purportedly justified by the claim that the owner of the goods had previously generated ‘e’ way bills without actually supplying the goods in prior assessment years.

The crux of the argument is whether the respondent’s actions in demanding and collecting the full tax liability, despite the petitioner’s compliance with the provisions for release, were justified or not.

In the current case, the primary issue for consideration, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is whether a transporter can be held liable or proceeded against under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act (TNGST Act) when the allegations involve the owner of the goods, rather than the transporter.

The petitioner contends that the transporter should not be penalized based on alleged violations or issues related to the owner of the goods, arguing that the allegations concerning the dealer (the owner of the goods) should not affect the transporter’s liability.

However, an important development in the case is noted by the State counsel. The State counsel, providing information on instructions, confirms that the vehicle involved in the dispute, a truck with Registration No. TN 29 BD 2891, along with its entire consignment, has been released. This release occurred on August 20, 2019, at 8:30 PM. This fact has been officially recorded.

Following this release, the impugned notice has been superseded by new proceedings dated August 20, 2019. These new proceedings fall under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, and it is indicated that these proceedings have been duly served.

In summary, the petitioner’s key argument challenges the legitimacy of holding the transporter responsible for issues related to the owner of the goods, while the State counsel acknowledges the resolution of the immediate matter by confirming the release of the vehicle and consignment and noting the initiation of subsequent proceedings under the relevant section of the Act.

In this case, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that the petitioner retains the right to challenge the recent proceedings dated August 20, 2019, under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act (TNGST Act) through an appeal or revision. Specifically, the counsel suggests that the petitioner can invoke Sections 107 and 108 of the TNGST Act to contest the proceedings.

Given that the vehicle and consignment involved in the dispute have already been released, the court has decided to dispose of the writ petition. The dismissal of the writ petition is made with the condition that the petitioner’s right to challenge the proceedings dated August 20, 2019, remains intact. The petitioner may pursue an appeal under Section 107 or a revision under Section 108 of the TNGST Act, as preferred.

The court has clarified that the decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It ensures that the appellate or revisional authorities will review the matter based on its own merits and in accordance with the law. All issues regarding the case are left open, and this order will not obstruct any ongoing or future legal proceedings before the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority.

Furthermore, no costs have been imposed in this matter. Consequently, any connected miscellaneous petition related to this case has been closed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: