2020 (9) TMI 119 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Seizure order - penalty order - Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act - HELD THAT - The goods which are eatable items i.e. Supari and the vehicle are seized since 14th December 2018 and to protect the interest of revenue this Court deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit the entire assessed tax i.e. sum of 1, 84, 000/- plus penalty to the extent of Rs. 10, 00, 000/- with the seizing authority/ assessing authority and will furnish the security for the remaining penalty amount other than cash bank guarantee or bank draft to the satisfaction of seizing authority. List this petition before appropriate Court on 20.10.2020.

Issues Involved:
1. Seizure and penalty orders passed under UPGST.
2. Appeal against seizure order filed by the petitioner.
3. Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner.
4. Challenge to the order affirming the seizure by the First Appellate Authority.
5. Non-constitution of tribunal by competent authority.
6. Imposition of tax liability and penalty on seized goods.
7. Allegations of illegal and arbitrary seizure.
8. Dispute regarding the identity of the petitioner.
9. Interest of revenue and justice.
10. Direction for deposit of assessed tax and penalty for release of seized goods and vehicle.
11. Verification and filing of counter affidavit.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed by M/s Shabharwal Traders challenging the seizure and penalty orders passed under UPGST against Md. Saheed, the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner, a registered firm, appealed against the seizure order, contending that the goods and vehicle were detained illegally since December 2018. The Additional Commissioner's order was passed in the name of different entities, leading to confusion and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner raised concerns about the non-constitution of a tribunal, depriving them of a proper remedy against the impugned order. The seizing authority imposed a tax liability of ?1,84,000 and a penalty of ?36,96,000 on the seized goods. The petitioner argued that the seizure and detention were unlawful and arbitrary, seeking relief from the court.

3. The Standing Counsel for the department disputed the petitioner's association with the seized goods, questioning their identity and involvement. Emphasizing the interest of revenue, the counsel urged the court to secure the revenue's interests in the matter.

4. After hearing both parties and considering the facts, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the assessed tax of ?1,84,000 and a penalty of ?10,00,000 with the seizing authority. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to provide security for the remaining penalty amount. Upon compliance, the seized goods and vehicle would be released in accordance with the law.

5. The Standing Counsel was tasked with submitting a computer-generated copy of the order from the High Court's official website for verification. The respondent authority was required to file a counter affidavit with all relevant material for the court's decision. Timelines were set for the filing of affidavits, with the petition listed for further proceedings on a specified date.

← Previous Next →