2019 (5) TMI 1781 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - demand of tax alongwith equal amount of penalty - though the show cause notice mentions that it was intercepted during movement but the fact is that the exercise was carried out outside the godown of the distributor who is the petitioner before this Court - HELD THAT - The State respondents are directed to file their counter affidavit but in the nature of the goods that is found loaded coupled with the fact that proceedings have been initiated for an alleged default within the city of Kishanganj and not beyond the destination and bearing in mind the provisions of Section 129(1)(c) of the Act, respondent no. 3 or the authority competent to do so, are directed to release the goods in question within 48 hours of receipt/production of a copy of this order on furnishing of security by the petitioner in terms of the provisions underlying Section 129(1)(c) of the Act . List this case on 27th June, 2019.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petition for quashing order under Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Seizure of goods, tax demand, penalty imposition - Validity of transport document - Allegation of transporting goods beyond city - Counter affidavit by State - Release of goods provision under Section 129(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran and the Honorable Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan pertains to a petition seeking the quashing of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Kishanganj Circle, under the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The order involved the seizure of goods loaded on a truck and the imposition of a tax demand along with a penalty. The petitioner contended that the goods were being transported from Hajipur to Kishanganj under a valid transport document, including an 'E Way Bill,' and that the interception took place outside the distributor's godown. The petitioner emphasized that the allegation did not involve transporting goods beyond Kishanganj but pertained to activities within the city. On the other hand, the State, represented by Mr. Vikash Kumar, argued that the vehicle was in motion at the time of interception.

The Court, considering the circumstances and the provisions of Section 129(1)(c) of the Act, directed the concerned authority to release the seized goods within 48 hours upon the petitioner furnishing security as per the requirements of the said section. The Court also allowed the State to file a counter affidavit and set a date for further proceedings under the heading 'For Orders-I' on 27th June, 2019, for final disposal of the matter. This comprehensive analysis addresses the key legal issues involved in the judgment, including the validity of the seizure, the interpretation of transport documentation, the jurisdiction of the tax authorities, and the procedural steps to be followed for the release of seized goods under the relevant legal provisions.