9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction. 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 - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3826 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2016 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : UCHIT N SHETH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM, ASSTT. GOVT. PLEADER ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is the case of petitioner that since the driver of the truck was a native of a village near Rajkot, he took a detour through the Ahmedabad Rajkot highway so that he could stop by at his native village. On 02.03.2016, at about 1:30 a.m., the vehicle was stopped by the police and the driver was asked to show the documents relating to the goods. The policemen, thereafter, informed the VAT authorities about the truck, whereupon, the Commercial Tax Officer passed the impugned stop delivery order dated 03.03.2016 and issued notice for imposition of penalty under section 68 of the GVAT Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that section 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eizure memo is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are required to be directed to forthwith release the truck in question with the goods contained therein. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, supported the action of the respondents by submitting that the driver of the truck in question did not possess the transit pass and hence, the respondents had a bona fide reason to believe that the petitioner intended to sell the goods in the State of Gujarat and hence, the second respondent was justified in issuing seizure memo. It was pointed out that by virtue of the provisions section 69 of the GVAT Act, the respondents are duly empowered to levy tax and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rier to impose penalty in addition to tax to the extent provided thereunder, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the owner, driver or person-in-charge of goods. Thus, under sub-section (4) of section 68 of the GVAT Act, it is the officer in-charge of the check-post or barrier who is empowered to take action under the said provision. 8. In the present case, admittedly, the goods have been seized by the police and not at a check-post or a barrier as contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 68 of the GVAT Act. The second respondent is also not an officer-in-charge of a check-post or barrier as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 68 of the GVAT Act and hence, is not empowered to take any action under the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
