2023 (12) TMI 466 - HC - GST

Seeking release of goods alongwith vehicle - Validity of summons and the endorsement issued by respondent No. 2 - petitioner is ready and willing to pay the penalty, if there are any excess goods carried in the vehicle, but he does not admit excess goods having been carried and any violation having been committed - HELD THAT - It is in the interest of the petitioner that he would participate in the physical verification and inquiry on the basis of the summons issued for physical verification of the goods, cooperate with the inquiry that would be conducted by the respondents and comply with the requirements as sought for by the respondents in production of documents as sought. The petitioner is duty bound by law to answer the summons issued by the respondents and to produce the documents. At the same time, the petitioner is at liberty either to make good the penalty or to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum - it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition. The petitioner shall approach respondent No. 3 and participate in the inquiry on the basis of the summons issued at Annexure G - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Petition to quash summons and endorsement, relief of mandamus regarding excess goods transportation and physical verification.

Summary:
The petitioner, owner of a goods carrier, filed a petition seeking to quash the summons and endorsement issued by the respondents regarding the interception of the goods carrier carrying TMT steel bars. The petitioner claimed to have all necessary documents and invoices, paying legal tax as per the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the respondents suspected excess transportation and seized the vehicle, seeking further documents and verification. The petitioner requested the release of the vehicle for physical verification, denying any violation of rules. The respondents contended that excess goods were indeed carried, and the petitioner needed to submit necessary documents for verification. The respondents assured release of the goods upon payment of any applicable penalty. The court directed the petitioner to participate in the inquiry, cooperate with the verification process, and comply with document production requests. The petitioner was advised to either pay the penalty or challenge the order before the appropriate forum. The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to appear before the respondents for inquiry and document review, with suitable orders to be passed within a week, unless a longer duration was required for the inquiry.