2016 (3) TMI 698 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of seizure memo issued by commercial Tax Officer - Section 68(4)(b) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Trading of Sopari in truck - Truck was stopped by police who was not the officer-incharge of the notified check-post and seized the goods under Section 68 of the GVAT Act without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - There is no such provision under the Act, therefore, the action of the respondent is without any authority of law - Held that - the action taken by the second respondent in issuing the seizure memo under section 68(4)(b) of the GVAT Act is without any authority of law and therefore, lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not sustainable. Also Section 69 of the GVAT Act does not empower the authorities under the said Act to seize a vehicle or the goods. If the requirements of section 69 of the GVAT Act are met with, the respondents were not and are not precluded from taking any action thereunder, however, the action taken under section 68(4)(b) of the Act is totally without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to seizure memo under GVAT Act, jurisdiction of authorities under sections 68 and 69, breach of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged a seizure memo issued by the Commercial Tax Officer under section 68(4)(b) of the GVAT Act, regarding the seizure of goods in a truck passing through Gujarat. The petitioner contended that the seizure was unauthorized as it was done by a police officer on the highway without proper jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the seizure violated principles of natural justice as no opportunity for explanation was given before seizing the goods.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the authorities were not empowered to seize goods under section 69 of the GVAT Act, which deals with penalties for not possessing transit passes. The respondents claimed that the seizure was justified because the truck driver did not have a transit pass, indicating an intention to sell goods in Gujarat. The respondents argued that they had the authority to levy penalties under section 69 for such violations.

3. The court found that the seizure was conducted by a police officer, not an authorized officer at a check-post or barrier as required by section 68(1) of the GVAT Act. The court emphasized that only officers in charge of check-posts or barriers could seize goods under section 68(4) after giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Since the seizure was not carried out as per the Act's provisions, it lacked jurisdiction and was deemed unlawful.

4. The court clarified that while section 69 empowered authorities to levy penalties for non-compliance with document requirements, it did not grant the power to seize goods or vehicles. As the seizure memo was issued under section 68(4)(b) without proper authority, it was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the truck and goods immediately. The court allowed the respondents to take lawful action if the petitioner failed to comply with other provisions of the GVAT Act.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the challenge to the seizure memo under the GVAT Act, the jurisdiction of authorities under sections 68 and 69, and the breach of principles of natural justice.