9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 692 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of seizure memo issued by commercial Tax Officer - Section 68(4)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Business of trading in ceramic tiles - Truck detained on non-submission of required documents - Truck stopped at a place other than check-post or barrier and respondent was not an officer-in-charge of the check-post or barrier as contemplated under Section 68 - Held that - the action taken by the respondent in issuing the seizure memo under section 68(4)(b) of the GVAT Act is without any authority of law and therefore, it is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues: Challenge to the seizure of goods under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Jurisdiction: The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods under sub-section (4) of section 68 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, contending that the powers to seize goods are vested in the officer-in-charge of a check-post or barrier as per sub-section (1) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the truck was detained at a location not designated as a check-post or barrier, rendering the seizure without legal authority. The court noted that the impugned action was indeed taken by an official not authorized under the Act, leading to a lack of jurisdiction in the seizure. 2. Legal Provisions: The court examined the relevant sections of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, specifically focusing on sections 68, 69, and 70(A) to determine the legality of the seizure. Sub-section (4) of section 68 empowers the officer-in-charge of a check-post or barrier to seize goods if the driver fails to make a declaration or keep a copy as required. However, in this case, the truck was detained at a location not designated as per sub-section (1) of section 68, highlighting the lack of authority in the seizure. 3. Arguments and Counterarguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the seizure was unlawful as it was not carried out by the designated official under the Act. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the seizure was justified under sections 68 and 70 of the Act due to the driver's failure to produce necessary documents. The respondent further suggested that the goods could only be released upon payment of tax and penalty, or subject to conditions set by the court. 4. Court's Decision: After considering the submissions from both parties, the court found that the seizure was conducted without legal authority as the truck was detained at a location not specified as a check-post or barrier under the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the seizure memo, and directed the immediate release of the truck and goods. The court made the rule absolute, with no order as to costs, in favor of the petitioner.
|
