Sri Sri Balaji Diggers VS State Of Karnataka

The petitioner has contested a seizure order issued by Respondent No. 4 on February 13, 2019, under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The core issue is related to the seizure of a vehicle transporting an excavator, which the petitioner claims was improperly handled under the Act.

The petitioner operates under the name “Sri Sai Balaji Diggers,” specializing in earth-moving services. To facilitate their business, an e-way bill (No. 1910 8302 4307) was generated for a work order issued by M/s Damodar & Co. for the period from November 20, 2018, to January 31, 2019. The excavator, necessary for their operations, was transported by a vehicle with Registration No. KA 01 AG 6219, operated by M/s Gods Gift Transportation.

On February 4, 2019, at 11:20 p.m., this vehicle was intercepted by the authorities. During this interception, it was noted that the e-way bill did not match the details of the transportation. Consequently, Respondent No. 4 issued FORM GST MOV-06, which is an order for the detention of the vehicle and the goods under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. Subsequently, a notice under Section 129(3) was issued, directing the petitioner to pay a penalty amount of Rs. 5,76,000 (Rupees five lakhs seventy-six thousand only).

Following this, an order was passed specifying the quantification of the tax and penalty, amounting to Rs. 5,18,400 (Rupees five lakhs eighteen thousand four hundred only). The petitioner argues that the seizure and the subsequent penalty were unjustified, and they are challenging the legality and correctness of these actions in their petition.

In this case, the petitioner has raised several points challenging the seizure order passed by Respondent No. 4. The petitioner’s counsel, Sri V.G.S. Narayanan, argues that the transaction in question falls under the category of a service transaction, which, according to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), is not subject to the same tax regulations that apply to goods.

On February 4, 2019, the petitioner generated an e-way bill (No. 1511 0221 3149) at 9:51 p.m., which was sent via WhatsApp to the mobile number of Respondent No. 4. Despite this, Respondent No. 4 allegedly failed to consider the e-way bill provided electronically. The petitioner contends that this oversight, coupled with a violation of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs GST policy circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated September 14, 2018, led to the erroneous issuance of the seizure order.

According to the petitioner, the seizure of the excavator has significant adverse effects, including the potential cancellation of work orders due to the inability to complete the work within the specified time frame. The petitioner argues that the seizure and the subsequent penalty of Rs. 5,76,000 are unjust and seeks the immediate release of both the goods and the conveyance involved in the transaction.

The petitioner’s case emphasizes the procedural error and non-compliance with relevant GST policy guidelines, which they believe have resulted in an unjustified seizure of their property.

In response to the petitioner’s challenge against the seizure order, learned counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol, representing the Revenue, defended the actions taken by Respondent No. 4. Sri Huilgol argued that the petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Authority should be the proper forum for addressing issues related to the e-way bill discrepancies. According to him, the Appellate Authority is tasked with evaluating the validity of the petitioner’s claims and any inconsistencies with the e-way bill. Consequently, the filing of a parallel writ petition in this matter should be discouraged as it could undermine the established appellate process.

The petitioner contends that the seizure of their goods and conveyance by Respondent No. 4 is contrary to the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing on September 14, 2018. This circular likely contains guidelines or instructions relevant to the handling of such disputes and procedural errors, which the petitioner believes were not adhered to in their case.

In summary, the petitioner is challenging the seizure order on the grounds that it violated specific circular instructions and that the Appellate Authority should address these issues rather than initiating writ proceedings. The Revenue’s counsel, on the other hand, asserts that the proper course of action is to resolve these disputes through the appeal process rather than through a writ petition.

**Summary:**

In response to the petitioner’s challenge against the seizure order, learned counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol, representing the Revenue, defended the actions taken by Respondent No. 4. Sri Huilgol argued that the petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Authority should be the proper forum for addressing issues related to the e-way bill discrepancies. According to him, the Appellate Authority is tasked with evaluating the validity of the petitioner’s claims and any inconsistencies with the e-way bill. Consequently, the filing of a parallel writ petition in this matter should be discouraged as it could undermine the established appellate process.

The petitioner contends that the seizure of their goods and conveyance by Respondent No. 4 is contrary to the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing on September 14, 2018. This circular likely contains guidelines or instructions relevant to the handling of such disputes and procedural errors, which the petitioner believes were not adhered to in their case.

In summary, the petitioner is challenging the seizure order on the grounds that it violated specific circular instructions and that the Appellate Authority should address these issues rather than initiating writ proceedings. The Revenue’s counsel, on the other hand, asserts that the proper course of action is to resolve these disputes through the appeal process rather than through a writ petition.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: