BharatTaxGST

M/S Jupiter Express Carrier (P) Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/11433/2022HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01030536202109 February 2023Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.HEMAKUMAR K., AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - WP No. 11433 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. 11433 OF 2022 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S JUPITER EXPRESS CARRIER (P) LIMITED NO.2/29, JAWAHARNAGAR, OPP JAWAHAR ENCL AVENUE, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD, S/O.BANARASI DAS SOOD, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. …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-110001. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS GST POLICY WING, NEW DELHI-110002. Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 11433 of 2022 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 4. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (KARNATAKA) VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA-1, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009. 5. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (VIGILANCE)-26 3RD FLOOR, VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAY-2, A BLOCK, VIVEKNAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HEMAKUMAR K., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 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 SERVICE TAX ACT KGST ACT 2017 AS ILLEGAL ULTRA VIRES AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19, 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; DECLARE THE IMPUGNED SECTION 130 OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT CGST ACT 2017 AND SECTION 130 OF THE KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT KGST ACT 2017 AS ILLEGAL ULTRA VIRES AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19, 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. - 3 - WP No. 11433 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 06 GB 6949, 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’] and the Circular issued and the proceedings initiated under Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST Act insofar as it relates to seizure and confiscation thereof. However, Sri. Govindraya Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that because the petitioner’s essential case is that the petitioner has lent on hire the vehicle to a ‘Transporter’ and because there is no connivance, the subject vehicle cannot be confiscated, and in similar circumstances, this Court has enabled enquiry with liberty to the concerned vehicle owners to file

- 4 - affidavit, the petitioner would also confine the petition to similar relief with the observation.

2.

Sri. Govindraya Kamath submits that this Court may observe that the orders under Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST Act shall be subject to the orders in the enquiry and that the petitioner will not only file detailed affidavit bringing out the circumstances that would demonstrate lack of connivance with the ‘Transporter’ but also participate in the enquiry through an authorized representative, and therefore, this Court may grant appropriate opportunity.

3.

As against these submissions, Sri K Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the contesting respondents, viz., respondent Nos.1-3, submits that this Court could consider disposing of this petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file affidavit and place circumstances that would underline the

- 5 - petitioner’s case that there is no connivance, and this Court may also consider observing that the fifth respondent shapll be at liberty to consider not only the material placed on record to adjudicate on the question of connivance but also to consider the unwillingness of the petitioner or duly authorized representative to place on record all material to effectively adjudicate on such question.

In the light of the afore and in the circumstances as recorded, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner/duly authorized representative of the petitioner 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 the circumstances against confiscation. The fifth respondent shall consider all such circumstances including any

- 6 - unwillingness to effectively participate in the enquiry, to adjudicate on the question of connivance and the confiscation of the subject vehicle. It would be needless to observe that 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.