Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2013 (9) TMI 1237 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure and initiation of proceedings u/s 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. Whether goods in transit amount to storage and contravention of the licensing order.
3. Applicability of the 2002 Order retrospectively.
4. Violation of Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act and principles of natural justice.
5. Ownership of goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
6. Error in holding the 2002 Order as non-retrospective.

Summary:

1. Legality of Seizure and Initiation of Proceedings u/s 6(A):
The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation dated 07.12.2002 by the Collector & District Magistrate, Sundargarh, arguing that there was no reason to believe any contravention of the Control Order, making the seizure illegal and the initiation of proceedings u/s 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act without jurisdiction.

2. Goods in Transit and Storage:
The petitioner contended that the goods were seized in transit, which does not amount to storage, hence no contravention of the licensing order occurred. The Court agreed, noting that the goods were still in transit and had not been delivered to the consignee, thus the petitioner remained the owner of the goods as per Section 51 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

3. Retrospective Application of the 2002 Order:
The petitioner argued that the beneficial provisions of the "Removal of (Licensing requirements, Stock limits and Movement Restrictions) on Specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002" should apply retrospectively. The Court agreed, citing precedents like Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab and others, which allowed retrospective application of beneficial provisions.

4. Violation of Section 6(B) and Natural Justice:
The petitioner claimed that the Collector violated Section 6(B) of the Essential Commodities Act by not issuing any notice to the petitioner, thereby denying them the opportunity to present their case, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Ownership of Goods:
The Court observed that since the cheque given by the consignee was dishonored, the petitioner remained the owner of the goods as per Section 45(1)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The goods were still in transit, and thus, no contravention of the Control Order could be established.

6. Error in Holding 2002 Order as Non-Retrospective:
The Court found that the Collector erred in holding that the 2002 Order had no retrospective effect. The Court held that the 2002 Order should be given retrospective operation for the benefit of the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned order of confiscation, canceled the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, and made the interim Zima of the truck absolute. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates