9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022 [Annexure no. 18 and 20 to the writ petition] issued by respondent no. 3. (iv) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to release the goods and vehicle no. UP65BT/2241 so seized/ detained vide Order dated 07.03.2022. (v) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favor of the petitioner as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (vi) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 3. This writ petition was heard at length on 21.04.2022 and a detailed order was passed. The matter was again heard on 29.04.2022 and 06.05.2022. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 4. Petitioner no.1 is the partnership concern engaged in manufacture and sale of tobacco products and is registered under the provisions of The Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Act') having GSTIN 06AABFG2788A1ZQ at Panipat (Haryana). Petitioner no.2 is a proprietorship concern engaged in transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (which was sealed in March 2020 with India) imposed conditions of 7 days quarantine and the visitors are allowed only after 14 days from the date of having last dose of COVID-19 vaccine and as the driver of the vehicle does not fulfill the conditions required for entry in Nepal thus he left the goods in the godown of petitioner no. 2 situated at Gida, Gorakhpur for further transshipment by another vehicle to Nepal. In support of the above said submission the petitioner is bringing on record a news report published in Kathmandu Post. A true/photo copy of the news report as published in Kathmandu Post is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.8 to this writ petition. 15. That as the quantity of the goods of the petitioner is not a full truck load further limited drivers are available intended to transport goods in Nepal thus the period specified in E-way bill expired. 16. That the expiry of period of E-way bill is beyond the control of the petitioner and is not a deliberate act of the petitioner in fact the same is bona fide. 17. That under the above said specific circumstances the goods in question can only be transported to Nepal, when the vehicle is available and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y other date has been communicated to them. In paragraph 44 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that they cannot be punished for the mistake occasioned bonafidely under the specific condition imposed by the Government of Nepal for entry due to COVID-19. These paragraphs 43 and 44 have been replied in paragraph 40 of the counter affidavit in which the facts as aforementioned have not been specifically denied by the respondents. 11. In paragraphs 46, 47 and 48 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the respondent no.3 had issued notice dated 28.02.2022 in the form of an order in arbitrary exercise of his power and ordered for deposit of more than Rs.1,00,000/- for release of the vehicle and while issuing the said notice directed to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- as against the outer limit of Rs.1,00,000/- fixed by the Statute. In paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of the writ petition, the petitioners have made detailed and pointed specific averments that neither there was any intention of evasion of tax nor have they committed any default nor a sum of Rs.27,07,200/- could have demanded for release of goods nor the goods could be confiscated. It has further been specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasoned order dated 2nd June, 2021, as passed by the the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 9688 of 2020. Rather, we are clearly of the view that the error, if any, on the part of the High Court, had been of imposing only nominal costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on the respondent No. 2 of the writ petition, who is petitioner No.2 before us. The consideration of the High court in the order impugned and the material placed on record leaves nothing to doubt that the attempted inference on the part of petitioner No.2, that the writ petitioner was evading tax because the e-way bill had expired a day earlier, had not only been baseless but even the intent behind the proceedings against the writ petitioner was also questionable, particularly when it was found that the goods in question, after being detained were, strangely, kept in the house of a relative of the petitioner No.2 for 16 days and not at any other designated place for their safe custody. The High Court has, inter alia, found that: "41. ........ It was the duty of 2nd respondent to consider the explanation offered by petitioner as to why the goods could not have been deliv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liberate intention to treat the validity of the expiry on the e-way bill as amounting to evasion of tax without any evidence of such evasion of tax by the petitioner." Having said so, the High Court has set aside the levy of tax and penalty of Rs. 69,000/- (Rupees Sixty-nine Thousand) while imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), payable by the petitioner No.2 to the writ petitioner within four weeks. The analysis and reasoning of the High Court commends to us, when it is noticed that the High Court has meticulously examined and correctly found that no fault or intent to evade tax could have been inferred against the writ petitioner. However, as commented at the outset, the amount of costs as awarded by the High Court in this matter is rather on the lower side. Considering the overall conduct of the petitioner No.2 and the corresponding harassment faced by the writ petitioner we find it rather necessary to enhance the amount of costs. Upon our having made these observations, learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to submit that the questions of law in this case, as regards the operation and effect of Section 129 of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
