9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 17-3-2016 - Anand Byrareddy, J. K. P. Kumar, Senior Counsel for Suryanarayana. T for the petitioner S.V. Giri Kumar, Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents ORDER Heard the learned senior advocate Shri K. P. Kumar appearing for the counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a company engaged, inter alia, in the business of providing critical logistics services. It offers expeditious pick up and distribution operations for Tier I and Tier II cities, with emphasis on direct network deliveries using owned and dedicated resources. On December 23, 2015 the petitioner is said to have collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me were uploaded online and there was no requirement of having the e-Sugam forms stamped by the Commercial Tax Officer. However, the second respondent is said to have detained the petitioner's vehicle along with the subject goods until the amount, sought to be levied as penalty, was paid. The vehicle was moved to and made to stop at the premises of the third respondent. There was no order passed to seize or to detain the vehicle which was clearly in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The driver was orally informed that the vehicle along with the subject goods would not be permitted to be moved from the premises of the third respondent, until penalty payable for the alleged contravention of the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o an order as prayed for and this is so held by this court in an earlier proceeding in W. P. No. 19870 of 2013 dated January 16, 2014 in the case of Shivam Trading Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [2016] 94 VST 201 (Karn), whereby in a similar situation where penalty had been collected without an order being passed and this court had summarily allowed the petition and has directed the respondent to refund the amount collected as penalty. Therefore, in the present case on hand as well since the rule requires any seizure and detention and while imposing a penalty, unless preceded by an order, any action of seizure or detention or collection of penalty would be bad in law. On all three counts it is noticed that the Department has not followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
