A K Jeevan vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of the goods carrier bearing Regn. No.KA-12A-1005, and when the vehicle was transporting the goods belonging to a third person, the respondent No.4 stopped the vehicle at Somavarpet, and on examination of the parcel, it was noticed that he had undervalued the goods, and tried to avoid payment of GST. It is stated that the respondent No.2 issued a communication dated 20.7.2020 to the petitioner stating that the Commercial Tax Officer has passed an order suspending the registration certificate of the subject vehicle for a period of four months, and the petitioner was called upon to produce the original documents, failing which, an appropriate action will be taken.
The respondent No.3 issued a communication dated 16.7.2020 to the Regional Transport Officer across the State calling upon them to suspend the registration certificate of the vehicles including the subject vehicle for a period of four months, in which, the goods were transported without valid documents. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
Sri P N Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed by the NC: 2024:KHC:8470 respondent No.3 in exercise of power under Section 53 of the MV Act, 1988, and the transportation of the goods in the subject vehicle to a third person without valid documents is not a ground enumerated under Section 53 of the MV Act, 1988 for suspending the registration certificate.
Therefore, the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.3 is contrary to the provision contained in Section 53 of the MV Act, and not sustainable in law.
The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submits that the respondent No.2 has only issued the communication calling upon the petitioner to furnish original documents, failing which, an appropriate action will be taken only after the petitioner furnishes the original documents. Therefore, the writ petition filed is premature, and sought for dismissal of the petition.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the proceedings were initiated under the Goods and Services Tax Act by the competent Authority against the third person, who was transporting the goods in the subject vehicle belonging to the petitioner without valid documents.
Section 53 of the MV Act, 1988 deals with suspension of registration certificate, and the registering authority may suspend the registration certificate for the NC: 2024:KHC:8470 grounds enumerated therein, and not for contravention of the Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, when the petitioner has not contravened the provisions enumerated in Section 53 of the MV Act, 1988, the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.3 is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders dated 20.7.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E, and dated 16.7.2020 passed by the respondent N.3 vide Annexure-F are hereby quashed. JUDGE
BKM
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.