2019 (9) TMI 571 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Illegal detention of goods along with vehicle - Section 53 of Karnataka VAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT - No doubt, the department may have good case on merits in respect of certain illegal activities alleged to have been committed by M/s.Siva Impex and the petitioner. Respondents/Commercial department shall have to resort for appropriate action/proceedings and they have no power to make such transmission of goods from one section to another section. Annexure-D dated 15.6.2017 is set aside reserving liberty to the Commercial Department to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioners as well as M/s.Siva Impex, if it is warranted - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of the impugned order passed by the first respondent
2. Release of goods in transit
3. Payment of damages for illegal detention of goods vehicle
4. Any other writ or orders deemed fit

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of the impugned order
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent. The vehicle carrying granite slabs was intercepted by the Check Post Officer, who, based on information from the vigilance department, handed over the goods to them. The petitioners argued that there was no provision allowing such transmission of goods between different sections of the Commercial Tax Department under Section 53 of the Act 2003. The court held that the department had no power to transfer goods between sections and set aside the impugned order, granting liberty to the Commercial Department to take appropriate legal action if necessary.

Issue 2: Release of goods in transit
The court directed the concerned respondents to release the goods in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of the order. The State informed that the seized goods (granite slabs) had been auctioned and disposed of, making it impracticable to return them. Therefore, the Commercial Tax Department was directed to pay the value of the goods as per the invoice within four weeks.

Issue 3: Payment of damages for illegal detention of goods vehicle
The petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay damages for the illegal detention of the goods vehicle. The court did not specifically address this issue in the judgment but granted relief by setting aside the impugned order and directing the release or payment for the goods.

Issue 4: Any other writ or orders deemed fit
The petitioners requested any other writ or orders deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. The court did not provide specific details on additional relief sought but granted the writ petition, allowing the concerned authorities to proceed in accordance with the law and directing the release or payment for the goods within a specified timeline.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, directed the release or payment for the goods, and provided specific timelines for compliance by the concerned authorities.