2016 (12) TMI 1497 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of seized truck and goods - non payment of tax dues - Held that - The Truck is detained since 15th October 2016, therefore, if the truck is kept idle for a longer period, the condition of Truck shall be deteriorating and it shall not be in the interest of either of the parties. Under the circumstances, the truck can be released on the terms stated hereinabove, which the petitioner has agreed to comply with. The petitioner has agreed to pay/deposit a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/ on or before 24th December 2016 and has also agreed to pay balance amount of ₹ 84,08,325/ with interest; if any on the outstanding amount on or before 20th February 2017 - An undertaking affirmed by the Regional Manager and the authorized signatory of the petitioner-Company to the aforesaid extent is also filed - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking quashing of a memo and order, release of seized truck and goods, tax liability dispute, terms of payment, provisional attachment of stock, protection of revenue interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash a memo and order issued by the Commercial Tax Officer and to release a seized truck and goods. During the hearing, the petitioner's advocate mentioned that the relief sought regarding the memo and order was not pressed. Instead, the petitioner requested the release of the truck bearing a specific registration number. The advocate stated the current tax liability of the petitioner and proposed a payment plan. The advocate assured that the petitioner had no objection if the seized goods were kept elsewhere at the petitioner's expense or in the petitioner's godown under attachment. The advocate also mentioned that the truck's owner would provide an undertaking to produce the truck when required. The respondent's AGP agreed that the proposed terms protected the revenue's interest.

The court noted the undisputed tax liability of the petitioner and the detention of the truck with goods since a specific date. Recognizing that prolonged detention could harm the truck, the court approved the release of the truck based on the agreed terms. The petitioner agreed to pay a specified amount by a deadline and the remaining balance by a later date. An undertaking by the petitioner's company was filed and accepted. The petitioner also consented to the continued seizure and attachment of goods and stock. The court ordered the release of the truck upon payment and filing of the necessary undertaking by the truck's owner. The court directed the petitioner to comply with the payment terms, failing which consequences for breaching the undertaking would follow. The seized goods and attached stock would remain under seizure until the full tax liability was settled.

The court disposed of the petition with specific directions: payment of an initial sum by a deadline, filing of an undertaking by the truck's owner, compliance with payment terms, and continued seizure of goods until full payment. The court allowed the department to seek revival of the matter if the petitioner failed to comply. The rule nisi was made absolute with no costs, and direct service was permitted.