Vajeed Kahan Kpathan @ Javeedkhan vs. The State Of Karnataka And Ors

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the summons dated 20.10.2023 vide Annexure – G issued by respondent No.3 and the endorsement issued by NC: 2023:KHC-K:8509 respondent No.2 vide Annexure – H dated 25.10.2023 and for the relief of mandamus.

The petitioner is the owner of the goods carrier bearing registration No.KA-51 AA 9027 and carrying goods, such as TMT steel bars from Bidar to Narayankhed, Telangana with E-Way Bill No.1717 2828 4583 dated 14.10.2023 and tax invoice No.1805 dated 14.10.2023 total 4 types TMT bars and paying legal tax as per the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. When the above said goods vehicle was moving towards Narayankhed from Bidar near Santhpur, on 14.10.2023 at 10-00 a.m., the said vehicle was intercepted by respondent No.3-officer. The petitioner tendered the documents issued under the Form GST MOV-I for verification, the petitioner failed to tender the documents mentioned in Annexures – A and B. Hence, respondent No.3 issued Form GST MOV-II suspecting excess transportation in the goods vehicle. Accordingly, respondent No.4 seized the vehicle and thereafter, details NC: 2023:KHC-K:8509 of the goods and the necessary relevant documents were sought to be produced from the petitioner.

The petitioner contacted respondent No.3 seeking for release of the vehicle and to conduct physical verification of the goods vehicle stating that he has not violated any of the rules, but it is the contention of the petitioner that instead of verifying the goods, respondents are dragging the matter without releasing the vehicle or levying any penalty on the petitioner, if any, excess goods were carried. The petitioner was visited with summons issued by respondent No.3 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is challenged here in this writ petition vide Annexure – G and also the endorsement issued thereafter by respondent No.2, which was issued for physical verification.

It is the contention of the petitioner that he was carrying the goods from Bidar to Narayankhed, Telangana by possessing all the papers, necessary bills and documents, which is legally permissible without any NC: 2023:KHC-K:8509 violation of the rules. However, if there are any excess goods that have been carried, it is well within the law and rules of the respondents and the Karnataka Goods and Serves Tax Act, 2017 to inspect and verify the physical verification of the same and impose penalty, if any. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the penalty, if there are any excess goods carried in the vehicle, but he does not admit excess goods having been carried and any violation having been committed. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the seized vehicle and goods are lying with the respondents without any valid reason. Hence, this petition filed for quashing Annexures – G and H issued by respondent No.3. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Malhar Rao for the respondents submits that the vehicle of the petitioner has been intercepted and it is noticed that there are excess goods and quantities carried by the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to submit the necessary documents and be present for physical NC: 2023:KHC-K:8509 verification and examination of the same. It is also contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that no order is passed yet. It is only the summon issued and directed the petitioner to participate in the physical verification of the goods and if there is any violation, necessary penalty as per the Act and Rules will be imposed and if on payment of the same, the respondents do not have any objections in releasing the confiscated goods along with the vehicle on payment of penalty, if any. The petitioner is also ready and willing to make the good payment and penalty, if any, imposed and legally applicable and valid.

This being the state of affairs, it is in the interest of the petitioner that he would participate in the physical verification and inquiry on the basis of the summons issued for physical verification of the goods, co- operate with the inquiry that would be conducted by the respondents and comply with the requirements as sought NC: 2023:KHC-K:8509 for by the respondents in production of documents as sought.

The petitioner is duty bound by law to answer the summons issued by the respondents and to produce the documents. At the same time, the petitioner is at liberty either to make good the penalty or to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum. In view of the above discussion and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER