Rajkumar Maheshwari VS Union of India

In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs. First, they request the quashing and setting aside of a Show Cause Notice dated 04/09/2019, which was issued by respondent No. 3. Secondly, pending the admission, hearing, and final disposal of this petition, the petitioner asks for a stay on the implementation and operation of the aforementioned Show Cause Notice. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a directive from the court to respondent No. 3 to release the petitioner’s vehicle. Finally, they request the release of the goods along with the vehicle, which are presumably being held by respondent No. 3. These reliefs indicate a dispute or legal issue regarding the actions of respondent No. 3, possibly concerning the seizure or detention of the petitioner’s vehicle and goods. The petitioner is seeking judicial intervention to address these grievances and obtain appropriate remedies.

The petitioner has filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking several reliefs. Firstly, to quash and set aside a Show Cause Notice dated 04/09/2019 issued by the respondent No.3. Secondly, pending the admission, hearing, and final disposal of the petition, to stay the implementation and operation of the mentioned Show Cause Notice. Thirdly, to direct the respondent No.3 to release the petitioner’s vehicle, and fourthly, to direct the release of the goods along with the vehicle.

The petitioner, identified as the owner of vehicle number MP­07­GA­8154, utilized for transporting goods, asserts that their vehicle was intercepted at Mangal Mahudi (N.H.) by the respondent No.3 – State Tax Officer (2) (Mobile Squad), Enforcement Division, Dahod. At the time of interception, the vehicle was found loaded with Pan Masala and Tobacco, despite the petitioner’s claim that it was only carrying a second-hand motorbike, for which documents were already with the driver.

The respondent No.3 issued a notice for detention of the goods under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, on 2nd September 2019, citing lack of proper documentation as required under Section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, on 4th September 2019, another notice was issued in form number GST MOV – 10 for the confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the Act, 2017.

The petitioner, being the vehicle owner, has filed this petition seeking relief as mentioned above.

The petitioner in this case has approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking several reliefs. First, they request to quash and invalidate a Show Cause Notice dated 04/09/2019 issued by the respondent No. 3. Additionally, they seek a stay on the implementation of this notice until the petition is heard and finally disposed of. Further, they ask for the release of their vehicle, along with any goods detained with it.

The petitioner owns a vehicle with registration number MP-07-GA-8154, which was being used for transporting goods that are now under detention and seizure. The vehicle was traveling from Gwalior to Surat to pick up goods for transportation. At the time of interception by respondent No. 3, the vehicle contained Pan Masala and Tobacco, for which the required documents under Section 68 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were allegedly missing. Consequently, a notice for the detention of goods was issued under Section 129(3) of the Act on September 2, 2019, followed by a notice for confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the Act on September 4, 2019.

The petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, has filed this petition seeking relief from the aforementioned actions.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel expressed the petitioner’s willingness to deposit Rs. 7,50,000/- (Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to secure the release of the vehicle. The Assistant Government Pleader, under instructions, stated that if the petitioner deposits this sum towards tax, interest, and penalty within two weeks, the vehicle will be released.

Based on the statements made by both parties, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the specified amount within two weeks to the respondent No. 3. Upon such deposit, the petitioner’s vehicle will be released. However, it’s noted that proceedings for confiscation under Section 130 of the Act may continue, as per the decision of the court in a previous case.

Finally, the petition is disposed of, with notice discharged and direct service permitted.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: