BharatTaxGST

M/S Sri Kendaganneshwara Swamy Traders vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP/201814/2024HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC03006492202424 July 2024Bench: R.NATARAJ6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL AND SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATESFor Respondent: SRI. MALHAR RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. G. B. YADAV, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:5271 WP No. 201814 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.201814 OF 2024 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SRI. KENDAGANNESHWARA SWAMY TRADERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER, SMT. RAJESHWARI B, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OF AGE, HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 79/A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. M/S SKS TRANSPORT, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR. BASAVAPATNA SHRIKANTA UDAY SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 2, B.B. COMPLEX, TRUCK TERMINAL, N.H. 4, BANGALORE ROAD, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA-577501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL AND SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:5271 WP No. 201814 of 2024 AND: 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (ENFORCEMENT)-06, VIJAYAPURA, AFZALPUR TAKKE, VIJAYAPURA-586102. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ENFORCEMENT) VIJAYAPURA, AFZALPUR TAKKE, VIJAYAPURA-586102. 3. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT), NORTH ZONE, VISVESVARAYA NAGAR, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590019. 4. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) DAVANGERE DIVISION, DAVANGERE VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, OPPOSITE BSNL OFFICE, DEVRAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALHAR RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. G. B. YADAV, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION. I) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.06.2024 IN FORM GST MOV-6 BEARING NO. CTO (ENF)-06/VJP/VIG-12/2024-25/B-81 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 129(1) OF THE KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 / CENTRAL GOODS AND - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:5271 WP No. 201814 of 2024 SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 (ANNEXURE-A) II) DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY EFFECT THE RELEASE OF THE GOODS TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. III) DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO IMMEDIATELY EFFECT THE RELEASE OF CONVEYANCE BEARING NO.RJ-14-GJ-6414 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. IV) DECLARING THAT THE INTERCEPTION, DETENTION / SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER’S GOODS AND THE 2ND PETITIONER’S CONVEYANCE BEARING NO.RJ-14-GJ-6414 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ARE WHOLLY BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

Petitioners have inter alia challenged an order dated 13.06.2024 under Section 129(1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the Act’) by which the goods and conveyance were detained.

2.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner No.1 which is engaged in the business of trading in arecanut had engaged the petitioner No.2 to transport certain quantity of arecanut NC: 2024:KHC-K:5271 under a valid tax invoice and e-way bill. The consignment was intercepted by the respondent No.1 on 07.06.2024. 3. Respondent No.1 noticed certain discrepancies in the goods transported and the goods mentioned in the e-way bill and therefore, took out proceedings as provided under the Act and detained the goods and the conveyance. Later, respondent No.1 passed an order under Section 130 of the Act and proposed to confiscate the goods and the conveyance. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the order of detaining of the goods and the conveyance on various grounds.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1 is willing to offer surety to cover the value of the goods and therefore, prays that the goods as well as the conveyance be released, subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the confiscation proceedings.

5.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that if the petitioners are willing to offer security to the satisfaction NC: 2024:KHC-K:5271 of the respondent No.1 in respect of the value of the goods and the penalty, the goods and the conveyance will be released.

6.

In that view of the matter, without going into the larger questions raised by the petitioners in this petition, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms:

i. The impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 is kept in tact. ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to release the goods as well as the conveyance held by respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively on the petitioner No.1 furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the respondent No.1 to cover the value of the goods and the penalty thereon as prescribed. iii. If the petitioners furnish security within a period of two weeks from today, the respondent No.1 shall release the goods and conveyance within a period of one week thereafter. NC: 2024:KHC-K:5271 iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the interim release of the conveyance and the goods shall not be construed as having any implication as regards the confiscation proceedings or affect the confiscation proceedings in any manner whatsoever. (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

SMA CT:SI List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.