Whether the vehicle in which goods
Case Title | Sherasiya Irfan Altabbhai vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors |
Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Ahsanduddin Amanullah and Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari |
Citation | 2022 (2) GSTPanacea 224 HC Andhra Pradesh WRIT PETITION No.2260 OF 2022 |
Judgement Date | 01-February-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Mr. S. Ganesh Babu |
Council for Respondent | Mr. S. A. V. Sai Kumar and Mr. V. Maheswar Reddy |
In Favor Of | Respondent |
Section | Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 |
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amarvati Bench of Justices Ahsanduddin Amanullah and Ravi Nath Tilhari, held that, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 129(2) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, as also that once such proceeding has been initiated, the same is now required to be taken to its logical conclusion.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was the owner of the truck where he was transporting goods granite slabs of the owner. The goods during the movement had been intercepted and detained because no document with regard to movement of the goods being carried by the vehicle. The petitioner is the owner of the truck and being transporter has nothing to do with the goods as he was hired by the granite factory to transport the granite slabs from Prakasam District to Maharastra. The Petitioner stated that law does not permit any detention of vehicle as only the concerned consignment/goods is liable to the same.
The Respondent stated that the action of the authorities is under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, „A.P.G.S.T. Act‟) and Section 129(2) thereof clearly provides for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.
Whether the vehicle in which goods
COURT HELD
The Court Held that that the law does not make any distinction between the conveyances and the goods and, in the present case, admittedly, no papers or documents were produced relating to the granite, which was subject to taxation under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, leading to a presumption that there was evasion and the authorities have rightly detained the vehicle in question. It was the vehicle in question on which the finished granite was being transported and upon interception, valid papers have not been furnished till date. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 129(2) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, as also that once such proceeding has been initiated, the same is now required to be taken to its logical conclusion.
Whether the vehicle in which goods
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
From the above case we can conclude that the law does not make any distinction between the conveyances and the goods and both are liable to be confiscated or detained under Section 129 of The CGST Act,2017.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: