BharatTaxGST

Mrs. Jatinder Kaur vs. Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/3160/2022HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01018512202109 February 2023Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.B.S. VENKATANARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HEMAKUMAR K, AGA FOR R3 TO R5

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - WP No. 3160 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3160 OF 2022 (T-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. JATINDER KAUR W/O PARAMJEET SAINI AGED 52 YEARS R/AT NO.140, 2ND FLOOR, SU BLOCK, PITAMPUR SHALIMAR BAGH S O NORTH WEST DELHI – 110088. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS GST POLICY WING, NEW DELHI - 110 002. Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 3160 of 2022 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (KARNATAKA) VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA - 1 GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 009. 5. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT - 24) SOUTH ZONE, 3RD FLOOR, VTK - 2 B BLOCK, VIVEKANAGAR KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.S. VENKATANARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HEMAKUMAR K, AGA FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE IMPUGNED SECTION 129 OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT CGST ACT, 2017 AND SECTION 129 OF THE KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT KGST ACT, 2017 AS ILLEGAL, ULTRA VIRES AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - WP No. 3160 of 2022

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR 55 W 0813, has called in question certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007 [for short, ‘CGST/KGST Act 2007’], certain Circular issued thereunder, and the proceedings initiated under Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST Act insofar as it relates to seizure and confiscation thereof.

2.

However, Sri. Govindraya Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that because the petitioner’s essential case is that she has lent her vehicle on hire to a ‘Transporter’ and because she has not connived to contravene any law, the subject vehicle cannot be confiscated. In similar circumstances, this Court has enabled enquiry into the question of connivance, with liberty to the concerned vehicle owners. The petitioner will file

- 4 - detailed affidavit to bring out circumstances that would demonstrate lack of connivance with the ‘Transporter’ and also participate in the enquiry through an authorized representative to vindicate her case. Therefore, this court may dispose of the petition observing that the orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST Act shall be subject to the orders in the enquiry.

3.

As against these submissions, Sri K Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the contesting first to third respondents, submits that this Court could consider disposing of this petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file affidavit with the first respondent to place on record the circumstances which could underline the petitioner’s case that there is no connivance. He further submits that this Court may consider observing that the fifth respondent will be at liberty to consider not just the material placed

- 5 - on record by the petitioner to adjudicate on the question of connivance [and therefore the confiscation of the subject vehicle], but also the petitioner’s unwillingness, or the unwillingness of her duly authorized representative, if any, to place on record all necessary material to effectively adjudicate on such question.

4.

On a careful consideration of these submissions, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner/her duly authorized representative to appear before the fifth respondent on 01.03.2023 and file a detailed affidavit to bring out the circumstances which according to the petitioner would demonstrate lack of connivance and therefore against confiscation of the vehicle. The fifth respondent shall consider all circumstances, including any unwillingness to effectively participate in the enquiry, to adjudicate on the question of connivance and the confiscation of the subject

- 6 - vehicle. It is observed that the orders impugned in this petition will be subject to the orders in such enquiry, and this Court has not considered merits of the claim as against connivance and it is left open to be decided by the fifth respondent strictly in accordance with law. JUDGE

AN/-

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.