2020 (2) TMI 670 - HC - GST

Release of goods alongwith the vehicle - inquiry sought by an independent agency against the role of respondent no. 4 on account of his having exercised the powers in an illegal and arbitrary manner - Punjab GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Though the petitioner has tried to make out a case of having made an innocuous prayer of seeking release of goods under the provisions of Section 129(1) of the Act, the copious material produced by the respondents shows the modus operandi being employed for the purpose of evasion of the tax liability under the provisions of the Act and on that count the status of the petitioner in seeking release of the goods claiming himself to be the owner, if at this stage is recognized by the respondents, is likely to prejudice the plea/stand which has been taken by the respondent department. The status of the petitioner as owner of the goods is in question inasmuch as while the petitioner relies on E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 for claiming himself the consignee, the claim of the respondents is that the goods already stand delivered insofar as the E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 is concerned - Therefore, the claim of the petitioner as owner qua the goods which are loaded on the detained vehicle has to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with law and the said aspect cannot be preempted by directing release of the goods to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to release goods and vehicle under RGST Act
2. Inquiry against respondent no. 4 for exercising powers illegally
3. Locus standi of petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court
4. Ownership of goods in intercepted vehicle
5. Appealability of the order passed under RGST Act
6. Prejudice to respondent department if goods released to petitioner
7. Competent authority to determine ownership of goods
8. Lack of rejoinder disputing material produced by respondents
9. Availability of alternative remedy under Article 226

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a direction to release goods and vehicle intercepted under RGST Act, claiming to be the consignee entitled to release under Section 129. Respondent no. 4 detained the goods citing discrepancies in documents and breakdown of the vehicle, leading to a request for security collateral under Section 129(3).

2. The petitioner alleged that respondent no. 4 acted unreasonably by not releasing the goods despite compliance with Section 129 requirements. An independent agency inquiry was sought against the respondent for exercising powers in an illegal and arbitrary manner during the interception.

3. The State raised a preliminary objection on the petitioner's locus standi, arguing that ownership of the goods in the intercepted vehicle was not established. The State contended that the goods had already been delivered to the petitioner, and the interception was part of a scheme to evade tax liability.

4. Ownership of the goods became a crucial issue as the petitioner claimed ownership based on the E-way bill, while the State asserted that the goods had been delivered. The Court emphasized the need for the competent authority to determine ownership rather than preempting the decision by directing release to the petitioner.

5. The State highlighted the appealability of the order passed under RGST Act, indicating that the petitioner could file an appeal under Section 107. The Court noted the availability of an alternative remedy and questioned the justification for interference under Article 226.

6. The Court observed that releasing goods to the petitioner at that stage could prejudice the respondent department's stance, given the alleged tax evasion scheme. The petitioner's status as the owner of the goods was disputed, necessitating a proper determination by the competent authority.

7. The judgment emphasized the importance of determining the ownership of the goods loaded on the detained vehicle through legal procedures. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's claim as the owner needed to be assessed in accordance with the law, rather than being decided prematurely.

8. The Court noted the lack of a rejoinder from the petitioner disputing the material presented by the respondents. This absence of contradiction weakened the petitioner's case and indicated that the prayer for release of goods could not be accepted at face value without further substantiation.

9. Considering the above discussions and the availability of an appeal as an alternative remedy, the Court concluded that no case for interference was established in the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, emphasizing the need for proper determination of ownership and adherence to legal procedures.