OSL Logistics (P.)  LTD. VS Assistant State Tax Officer

In a recent legal dispute, a logistics company specializing in the transportation of Maruti cars has initiated a writ petition due to the detention of one of its vehicles. The incident occurred when the vehicle, carrying Maruti cars, was intercepted and subjected to an inspection. During this inspection, it was discovered that the e-way bills—electronic documents required for the legal transport of goods—had expired. Consequently, both the vehicle and the cargo were detained by the authorities. This detention has led the petitioner to seek redress through the judicial system.

In the writ petition, the logistics company is seeking several specific forms of relief from the court. Firstly, the company requests a writ of certiorari, aimed at quashing the documents and orders identified as Exts.P2, P3, and P4. These documents are believed to pertain to the enforcement actions taken against the petitioner, which the company contends are unjustified or erroneous.

Secondly, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or an equivalent directive. This request is directed at compelling the first respondent—likely a government authority responsible for enforcement—to release the detained goods. The petitioner is willing to comply with the requirement to pay a penalty of Rs.500, as indicated in Ext.P5, which appears to be a formal order specifying the penalty amount for the expired e-way bills. This willingness to pay the penalty reflects the company’s intention to resolve the issue promptly and recover its detained goods.

Finally, the petitioner requests any additional relief that the High Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances. This open-ended request allows for the possibility of further remedies or actions deemed appropriate by the court to address the petitioner’s grievances.

The case has been presented before the court, where arguments have been heard from both the petitioner’s legal counsel and the learned Government Pleader representing the opposing side. The resolution of this matter hinges on the court’s assessment of the validity of the enforcement actions taken and the appropriate relief to be granted to the petitioner.

In the recent legal proceedings, the court has referenced a prior Division Bench decision in *Renji Lal Damodaran v. State Tax Officer* (Judgment dated August 6, 2018, in W.A. No. 1640 of 2018), which addressed a case involving similar circumstances. In that earlier case, the court dealt with issues related to the detention of goods and vehicles due to expired e-way bills, as well as the imposition of penalties and the legal framework governing such situations.

Drawing upon the legal principles established in *Renji Lal Damodaran*, the court has applied the same ratio to the present case. The judgment in *Renji Lal Damodaran* set a precedent regarding the conditions under which detained goods and vehicles could be released, specifically emphasizing the need for certain financial guarantees and bonds. In alignment with this precedent, the current court has issued specific instructions to the respondent authorities handling the case.

The court has directed that the petitioner’s detained goods and vehicle be released, provided that the petitioner fulfills certain conditions. These conditions include the submission of a Bank Guarantee to cover the tax and penalty amounts that have been determined as owing. This requirement ensures that the authorities have a financial assurance that the petitioner will meet its tax liabilities and any penalties imposed.

Additionally, the petitioner is required to furnish a bond for the full value of the goods. This bond must be in the form prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. Rule 140(1) outlines the procedural requirements for such bonds, which are designed to protect the interests of the revenue authorities and ensure that the goods in question are adequately secured.

By imposing these conditions, the court aims to balance the interests of both the petitioner and the state authorities, ensuring that the petitioner can retrieve its goods and vehicle while also meeting the legal and financial requirements necessary to address the issues of expired e-way bills and associated penalties. The application of the *Renji Lal Damodaran* judgment thus provides a clear framework for resolving the current dispute in a manner consistent with established legal precedents.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: