JUPITER EXPRESS CARRIER PRIVATE LTD VS UNION OF INDIA

The petitioner, who owns the vehicle with the registration number DL 01 GC 6192, is challenging the confiscation order dated April 17, 2021, issued under several provisions of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) laws. Specifically, these provisions include Section 130 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act), the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), and Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017.

In this case, the petitioner argues that the confiscation order, as outlined in Annexure-D, was issued improperly or without sufficient legal basis, leading to the grievance brought before the court. The detailed sections under which the confiscation order was issued are critical because they define the scope and authority under which the goods and vehicle were seized. These sections broadly pertain to the rules and regulations governing the movement, management, and tax implications of goods and services within and across state lines in India.

Under Section 130 of the KGST and CGST Acts, authorities have the power to confiscate goods or vehicles used for transportation if they believe that goods are being moved without proper documentation or in contravention of GST laws. Similarly, Section 20 of the IGST Act and Section 11 of the GST Compensation to States Act outline the conditions and procedural requirements for such actions under integrated and compensatory tax provisions.

The petitioner likely contends that these actions were either incorrectly applied or that the procedural requirements were not properly followed, resulting in the unlawful confiscation of their vehicle. The petition seeks to overturn or nullify the confiscation order, thereby restoring the petitioner’s rights over their property and potentially addressing any undue penalties or fines that might have been imposed as part of the confiscation process.

Given the complexities of GST laws and the multi-jurisdictional nature of these regulations, the resolution of this case would require a detailed examination of the circumstances under which the vehicle was confiscated, the compliance status of the petitioner with respect to GST documentation, and whether the authorities followed due process as mandated by the various sections of the GST Acts.

The petitioner, owner of the vehicle with registration number DL 01 GC 6192, is challenging the confiscation order dated April 17, 2021, issued under Section 130 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act), the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), and Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (GST Act). Additionally, the petitioner has questioned the validity of Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST/CGST Act.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Govindraya Kamath K., clarified that the petitioner would not challenge the statutory provisions themselves but focused on contesting the initiation of proceedings and the specific confiscation order dated April 17, 2021. The petitioner asserts there was no involvement with the transporter in the alleged tax evasion, and therefore, the vehicle should not be subject to confiscation.

On November 8, 2020, the fifth respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 130 of the GST/KGST Act, alleging that the petitioner was involved in tax evasion activities, which prompted the initiation of confiscation proceedings. The petitioner is seeking judicial review of the confiscation order, arguing that there was no connivance or wrongdoing on their part that would justify the seizure of the vehicle.

The petitioner, the owner of vehicle registration No. DL 01 GC 6192, is challenging the confiscation order dated April 17, 2021, issued under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act), Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), and Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 (GST Act). Additionally, the petitioner questions the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST/CGST Act.

Sri Govindraya Kamath K., the petitioner’s counsel, clarifies that the petitioner will not challenge the statutory provisions but focuses on disputing the initiation of proceedings and the confiscation order, arguing that there was no collusion with the transporter in tax evasion, and therefore, the vehicle should not be confiscated.

The fifth respondent issued a notice on November 8, 2020, to the petitioner under Section 130 of the GST/KGST Act, accusing the petitioner of conspiring with the transporter to evade taxes. This was followed by a Revised Show Cause Notice on March 4, 2021. The petitioner responded on March 19, 2021, requesting the release of the vehicle and asserting innocence in tax evasion.

However, on April 17, 2021, the fifth respondent issued the confiscation order without considering the petitioner’s defense. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for rectification on October 10, 2022, accompanied by an affidavit from a Director of the petitioner company. This affidavit emphasized that the company has a policy requiring transporters to arrange the necessary documents, thus negating any allegations of collusion.

In summary, the petitioner seeks judicial examination of the confiscation order and insists that the vehicle cannot be confiscated due to the lack of evidence of collusion with the transporter in tax evasion.

The petitioner, the owner of the vehicle registered as DL 01 GC 6192, has challenged the confiscation order dated April 17, 2021, issued under Section 130 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act), the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), and Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. Initially, the petitioner also contested the validity of Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST/CGST Act but later decided to focus solely on the initiation of proceedings and the confiscation order itself.

The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. Govindraya Kamath K., argued that the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged tax evasion. According to the counsel, a notice was issued by the fifth respondent on November 8, 2020, alleging connivance with the transporter to evade tax, followed by a Revised Show Cause Notice on March 4, 2021. The petitioner responded to this notice on March 19, 2021, asserting their innocence and requesting the release of the vehicle.

Despite this, the confiscation order was issued on April 17, 2021, without considering the petitioner’s arguments. The petitioner subsequently filed an application for rectification on October 10, 2022, supported by an affidavit from a Director of the company, explaining that the company insists on proper documentation from transporters and was unaware if the goods were transported without complete documentation. This application remains unconsidered.

In response, the Additional Government Advocate, Sri. K. Hemakumar, argued that the petitioner’s affidavit, merely stating ownership of the vehicle, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proving no connivance in tax evasion. He emphasized that specific evidence is required to substantiate the claim.

Upon review, the court called upon Sri. K. Hemakumar to determine if a further inquiry, including a personal hearing, should be conducted, as in similar cases, the court has mandated such an opportunity for the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: