2020 (2) TMI 1049 - HC - GST

Release of vehicle - the vehicle carrying goods were found to be carried in violation of GST provisions - case of respondent is that in absence of the payment, the vehicle could not be released - HELD THAT - It is a case where a vehicle alongwith goods were seized when it was found carrying goods in violation of the Act of 2017. The petitioner alongwith owner of the goods was served with the notice before seizure of the goods. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle but he failed to prove that he had no knowledge about the goods carried in the vehicle so as to discharge his burden as otherwise envisaged under the Act of 2017 - In absence of discharge of burden by the owner of the vehicle, an order for release of vehicle could not be passed - there are no illegality in the order. Liberty is given to the petitioner to again approach the authority with defence, as available to prove his innocence - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Release of vehicle seized under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the release of a vehicle seized by the respondents for carrying goods in violation of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle, appeared before the competent authority to request the release of the vehicle. However, the respondents did not accept the petitioner's request due to the non-payment of a substantial amount demanded. The petitioner argued that the amount was unreasonably high, causing unnecessary suffering. The petitioner urged the court to intervene and direct the release of the vehicle.

The court noted that the burden lies on the owner of the vehicle to prove innocence regarding the goods carried. Despite legal representation, the petitioner failed to provide evidence showing that the goods were carried without their knowledge. Consequently, the court could not order the release of the vehicle based on the lack of proof presented by the petitioner.

The court examined the provisions of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and observed that both the vehicle and the goods were seized for violating the Act. The petitioner, as the vehicle owner, was served notice before the seizure but could not demonstrate ignorance of the goods carried, as required by the Act. As the burden of proof was not discharged by the petitioner, the court found no illegality in the decision to withhold the release of the vehicle.

Although the writ petition was dismissed, the court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the authority again with a defense to prove innocence. This opportunity allows the petitioner to present additional evidence and arguments, ensuring a fair hearing in the future without the dismissal of the current petition hindering their ability to seek relief.