Vivek Ramvilas Bansal VS Deputy Commissioner of State Tax

In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs. First, they request the court to admit and allow the writ petition. Second, they ask for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, quo warranto, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set aside a notice dated 30th May 2019, on grounds of it being illegal, arbitrary, lacking jurisdiction, and unconstitutional. Third, they seek a directive for the release of goods seized by the respondent authorities. Fourth, they request the release of a specific vehicle, identified as HR-38-Q-7370, which was seized by the respondent authorities. Lastly, they urge the court to grant interim as well as ad-interim reliefs to stay the proceedings initiated based on the aforementioned notice until the petition is admitted, heard, and finally disposed of.

The case involves a writ-application under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution where the writ-applicant seeks several reliefs. These include admitting and allowing the writ petition, issuing a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to quash an impugned notice dated 30-5-2019, directing the release of seized goods and a vehicle, and granting interim reliefs to stay proceedings initiated by the notice.

The writ-applicant filed the petition, alleging the impugned notice to be illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and unconstitutional. The court, on 10th June 2019, heard from the Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents. The reliefs sought in the writ-application included admitting the petition, quashing the impugned notice, releasing seized goods and a vehicle, and granting interim reliefs to stay the proceedings.

Both the writ-application and the subsequent court order highlighted similar reliefs sought by the applicant, emphasizing the illegality and unconstitutionality of the notice in question. The court’s involvement is to adjudicate on the legality and validity of the notice, including directives for the release of seized items and interim reliefs pending further proceedings.

The case appears to revolve around alleged procedural irregularities and violations of constitutional rights by the respondent authorities. The applicant seeks judicial intervention to rectify these issues and ensure justice in the matter.

The case at hand involves a writ application under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, wherein the petitioner seeks various reliefs, including the quashing of a notice dated May 30, 2019, which they argue is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. They also seek the release of goods seized by the respondent authorities and the release of a vehicle seized during transit. Pending the final disposal of the petition, the petitioner requests interim relief to stay the proceedings and direct the release of the seized goods and vehicle.

On June 10, 2019, the court heard arguments from both parties and considered the materials on record. The petitioner, engaged in the plywood business and registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, had ordered goods from a manufacturer in Haryana. The manufacturer issued an invoice for the goods, including IGST charges. However, during transit, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by GST officers who alleged undervaluation of the goods.

The Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents argued that the petitioner and the manufacturer owed a significant sum in GST, of which a portion had already been paid. They stated that proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act had been initiated.

The central issue in the case revolves around the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. Section 129 deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit, while Section 130 pertains to confiscation of goods or conveyances and imposition of penalties.

The court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, proposed to pass an interim order regarding the release of the seized vehicle and goods. The petitioner’s contention regarding the valuation of the goods and the legality of the seizure under GST provisions forms the crux of the dispute. The court’s decision will likely hinge on the interpretation of relevant GST laws and precedents in similar cases.

Overall, the case underscores the complexities and legal intricacies involved in disputes arising from GST regulations and highlights the importance of judicial review in ensuring fair application and interpretation of tax laws.

The case revolves around a writ application filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking various reliefs. The petitioner, engaged in the plywood business and registered under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, sought the quashing of a notice dated 30th May 2019, which they deemed illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. Additionally, they requested the release of goods and a vehicle seized by GST authorities, along with interim reliefs to stay proceedings and grant release of seized items during the pendency of the case.

On 10th June 2019, the court heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the evidence. It was revealed that the petitioner had ordered plywood from Sagar Industries, a manufacturer in Haryana, and the goods were being transported via a vehicle owned by Sondhi Cargo Movers. However, GST officials intercepted the vehicle near Sanathal on 26th May 2019, alleging undervaluation of the goods.

The Assistant Government Pleader argued that the petitioner owed approximately Rs. 2,15,000 in GST, with a balance of Rs. 1,36,000 remaining unpaid. Proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act had been initiated against them.

The central issue was the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, which govern the seizure and confiscation of goods in transit. While the main legal issue was pending, the court focused on an interim order for the release of the vehicle and goods.

Considering the arguments and evidence, the court proposed an interim solution. It ordered the release of the vehicle and goods upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 1,50,000 with the GST department by a specified date. This decision was influenced by a previous court order that highlighted the procedural requirements under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act.

In summary, the court provided an interim resolution to release the seized items pending further legal proceedings, based on a deposit made by the petitioner, while the larger legal issues regarding GST procedures remained unresolved.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: