2020 (1) TMI 26 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods along with the vehicle/truck - sole allegation is that the driver/owner/person In-charge of the goods had not tendered any document, e-way bill, etc., even when all the valid documents were actually produced before the officer by the driver - HELD THAT - The writ petitioners have stated that they were ready to pay the excess amount after assessment. However, we are unable to understand as to how such a statement could be made by the writ petitioners in the absence of any resolution of the Board of Directors in support thereof. Since the writ petitioner no.1, being the company, is ready to pay the excess amount after assessment as may be determined by the concerned officer, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the concerned respondent authority to calculate the excess amount which is required to be paid by the writ petitioner together with penalty, if any, and communicate the same to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from date - If the writ petitioner / company makes full payment in terms of such communication to the concerned respondent authority within a week therefrom, the goods as well as vehicle may be released in favour of the writ petitioners in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to seizure of goods and vehicle, legality of notices dated 14/15th November, 2019 and 18th November, 2019, readiness to pay excess amount after assessment without Board of Directors' resolution.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Seizure of Goods and Vehicle: The petitioners challenged the seizure of goods and the vehicle by the authorities, alleging it was done illegally based on the driver's alleged failure to produce required documents like e-way bill, despite having valid documents. The main grievance was the seizure without proper justification.

2. Legality of Notices: The notices dated 14/15th November, 2019 and 18th November, 2019 issued by the Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Division Ist, Muzaffarnagar, respectively, were the subject matter of challenge. The petitioners contested the legality of these notices in the writ proceedings.

3. Readiness to Pay Excess Amount: In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, the petitioners expressed their willingness to pay the excess amount after assessment. However, the court noted the absence of a resolution by the Board of Directors supporting this claim. Despite this, the court acknowledged the company's readiness to make the payment as determined by the concerned officer.

In the judgment, the court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to calculate the excess amount to be paid by the petitioners along with any applicable penalty. The authority was instructed to communicate this amount to the petitioners within three weeks. If the company makes the full payment within a week from receiving the communication, the goods and vehicle are to be released in favor of the petitioners in accordance with the law. The judgment balanced the petitioners' readiness to pay with the procedural requirement of a Board resolution, ultimately providing a clear direction for resolution.