2018 (4) TMI 1291 - HC - GST

Release of detained vehicle alongwith goods - KGST Act - CGST Act - detention of goods on the ground that the invoice and other documents not produced - grievance of the petitioner that despite the full tax amount pertaining to the tax invoice submitted before the second respondent has been deposited, no vehicle/conveyance and goods are released till date - Held that - It is an admitted fact that no documents were carried by the driver/person in-charge of the goods vehicle at the time of interception of the goods vehicle on 08.03.2018. The ownership of the goods as well as quantum of penalty levied are also in dispute. These are all the factual disputes to be adjudicated before the Appellate Authority. This Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order under CGST Act and KGST Act for release of detained vehicle and goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act) seeking the release of a detained vehicle and goods. The petitioner's contention was that the vehicle carrying goods was intercepted without necessary documents, leading to seizure by the second respondent. The petitioner later provided the invoice, but the second respondent imposed tax and penalty under both Acts, causing the petitioner to approach the Court. The petitioner argued for immediate release due to adverse impact on livelihood, despite depositing the tax amount.

The High Court Government Pleader justified the order, stating that no documents were initially provided during the interception, and the subsequently produced tax invoice did not reflect accurate valuation. The respondent determined the goods' value based on market value as ownership was not established by the petitioner. The petitioner had paid only a portion of the determined amount, leading to non-release of the vehicle. The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner should exhaust alternative remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.

After hearing both parties, the Court noted the main dispute regarding the goods' valuation, lack of initial documents, ownership, and penalty amount. The Court decided to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority for adjudication of factual disputes. However, considering the circumstances, the Court directed the second respondent to release the vehicle and goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and additional deposit. The release was subject to the petitioner's appeal outcome before the Appellate Authority, leaving all rights and contentions open for further adjudication. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.