2021 (7) TMI 1210 - HC - GST

Seizure and detention of vehicle - Ambulance van - detention on the ground that the vehicles did not carry e-way bills - case of the petitioner is that the vehicles are purchased not for resale but for the own use and business purpose of the petitioner and in which case, there was no necessity of regenerating an e-way bill - HELD THAT - When the respondent No.3 has issued a show cause notice for completing the assessment for levying tax with or without penalty, let the petitioner file reply to such show cause notices. It would be open for the Assessing Officer to carry out the assessment, in accordance with law, after considering the reply of the petitioner. However, considering the prime defence of the petitioner that he is not a registered dealer nor is he dealing in purchase and sale of vehicles and the ambulances have been purchased by the petitioner only for its own use and purpose since the petitioner wants to start a business of proving ambulance service, it would not be appropriate to allow further detention of the vehicles. It would be open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notices dated 21st July 2021 by 10th August 2021 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to seizure and detention of ambulance vans for not carrying e-way bills, jurisdiction of detention and seizure, alternative remedy available to petitioner, release of vehicles pending assessment.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Tripura High Court dealt with the challenge raised by a private limited company regarding the seizure and detention of ambulance vans by respondent No.3 for not carrying e-way bills. The petitioner contended that the vehicles were purchased for their own use and business purposes, not for resale, and all applicable taxes on inter-State sales had been paid. On the other hand, the Government Advocate argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available and should reply to the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3 regarding unpaid taxes with penalties. The Court acknowledged the show cause notice and directed the petitioner to respond to it by a specified date. The Assessing Officer was instructed to pass orders after considering the petitioner's reply, with the possibility of a personal hearing if requested. Despite the pending assessment, the Court found it inappropriate to further detain the vehicles given the petitioner's defense that they were not a registered dealer and had purchased the ambulances for their own business use, intending to start an ambulance service. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the vehicles subject to certain conditions, including the furnishing of an unconditional bank guarantee for 25% of the possible tax and penalties indicated in the show cause notices, along with a bond for the remaining 75% of the values. The judgment also disposed of any pending applications related to the case.