2023 (6) TMI 1301 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - evasion of tax or not - goods were being transported on stock transfer basis from the additional place of business to the principal place of business - HELD THAT - Be that as it may, since the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have got their prima-facie case and the impugned seizure of the goods and vehicle is in derogation of the provisions of law, therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the liberty be given to the petitioners to file an application for provisional release of the goods as well as the vehicle before the adjudicating authority i.e. opposite party no. 2(Assistant Commissioner, Sector-3(Mobile Squad), State Tax Office, GST Bhawan, Vikas Bhawan, Road, Barabanki) within a period of 7 days from today taking all the pleas and grounds, which are available to them. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of an order passed u/s 129(1) of the Act, show cause notice for tax and penalty, release of detained consignment and vehicle, and the further proceedings during the pendency of the Writ Petition.

Quashing of Impugned Order:
The petitioners sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 20-06-2023 passed u/s 129(1) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the detention of goods was unjustified as they were being transported on a stock transfer basis. It was contended that adjudication proceedings would take time, risking the quality of goods and the public carrier. The Standing Counsel mentioned that goods and the vehicle could be released if conditions under Section 129 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 were met. The court allowed the petitioners to file an application for provisional release within 7 days, ensuring a speedy resolution.

Quashing of Show Cause Notice:
Another relief sought was to quash the show cause notice issued for tax and penalty. The petitioners argued that the detention of goods and the vehicle was contrary to the law. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to apply for provisional release before the adjudicating authority within 7 days, ensuring a fair hearing and prompt decision within 7 days of receiving the application.

Release of Detained Consignment and Vehicle:
The petitioners requested a writ mandamus to direct the release of the consignment and the vehicle during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The counsel emphasized the need for provisional release to prevent deterioration of goods and unnecessary halting of the carrier. The court allowed the petitioners to apply for provisional release within 7 days, ensuring a quick resolution and communication of the decision.

Prohibition on Further Proceedings:
The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition/mandamus to prevent further action based on the show cause notice during the Writ Petition's pendency. The court, considering the prima facie case presented by the petitioners, granted them the liberty to seek provisional release by filing an application within 7 days, with a commitment to expedite the process and communicate the decision promptly.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioners to file an application for provisional release within 7 days, ensuring a fair hearing and expedited decision-making process.