2018 (9) TMI 542 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - Petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The notice for confiscation was issued to the driver of the vehicle - Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that - In the facts of the present case, it appears that, the petitioner as the owner was well aware of the confiscation proceedings. The driver of the vehicle was given notice to the confiscation proceedings. He participated in such confiscation proceedings - it cannot be said that, the petitioner was without any notice of the confiscation proceedings. The order emanating out of the confiscation proceedings has been assailed by the parties in different forai. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for a writ court to intervene any further at the behest of the owner of the vehicle - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to notice of confiscation proceedings, Lack of notice to owner, Multiple writ petitions on same confiscation proceedings

In the present judgment, the issue revolves around a notice dated May 15, 2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kharagpur Range, which is being challenged in a writ petition. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, argues that the notice for confiscation was issued to the driver of the vehicle, rendering the confiscation order baseless. Reference is made to Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to support this argument.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, counter that this writ petition is the third one concerning the same confiscation proceedings. An order has already been passed on May 18, 2018, based on the confiscation notice. It is contended that the petitioner was aware of the confiscation proceedings, as evidenced by the averments in the writ petition. The driver of the vehicle, who was given notice of the confiscation proceedings, participated in them. The court notes that the petitioner, as the owner, was indeed aware of the confiscation proceedings but did not appear before the adjudicating or appellate authorities or the Writ Court to challenge the lack of notice. Given these circumstances, the court concludes that the petitioner cannot claim lack of notice regarding the confiscation proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismisses the writ petition without any order as to costs, emphasizing that the order emanating from the confiscation proceedings has already been challenged in various forms by the parties involved. The court deems it inappropriate to further intervene at the owner's behest at this stage. The judgment highlights the importance of parties being aware of legal proceedings and actively participating in them, especially when challenging the validity of notices and orders.