M/S Kalebudde Logistics vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Kalebudde Logistics, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an endorsement dated 08.06.2019 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement 14), Hubballi, and for a writ of mandamus to release goods and a conveyance. The conveyance was intercepted, and goods were seized. Proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with an order dated 20.05.2019 directing payment of tax and penalty. The petitioner made representations for the release of goods and conveyance, which were rejected by the first respondent citing pending confiscation proceedings. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) against the order dated 20.05.2019.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The reasoning was that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) against the order dated 20.05.2019. The Court found that the petitioner could and should seek the release of the goods involved in the appeal before the appellate authority. Since an appeal was pending against the main order, the petitioner could not simultaneously file a writ petition for the release of the very goods that were the subject matter of the appeal. The Court noted that Sections 129 and 130 of the Act provide for the release of goods on payment of fine. The operative direction was to reject the writ petition, with the observation that it was open for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief in the pending appeal, if permitted by law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 08.06.2019 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement 14), Hubballi, and a writ of mandamus directing the release of goods and conveyance, given that an appeal against the main order is pending before the appellate authority? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought the quashing of the endorsement and release of goods and conveyance, based on representations made to the respondents. The petitioner implicitly argued that the endorsement was erroneous and that the goods and conveyance should be released. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) against the order dated 20.05.2019. Therefore, the petitioner should seek the release of goods in the pending appeal itself. The revenue contended that a writ petition for the release of goods, which are the subject matter of the appeal, is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Sections 129 and 130 of the Act, which provide for the release of goods on payment of fine.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 130
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Endorsement No.CTO/ENF-14/Hbl/ 2019-20 dated 08.06.2019 produced at
3 Annexure-W and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to release the goods covered under the Tax Invoices No.RGHUB 00074 with e-way bill No.181123091 dated 26.04.2019, and tax invoices No.RGHUB 00073 with e-way bill No.161123321680 dated 26.04.2019 respectively and also the conveyance bearing registration No.KA-27/C 1825, absolutely in favor of the petitioner firm, by considering the representations dated 07.06.2019, made by the petitioner to the respondents No.1 to 4 respectively the copies of which have been produced herewith at Annexure-A to D.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conveyance bearing No.KA-27/C- 1825 was intercepted and searched and seized the goods in the vehicle. The respondents
4 initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the ‘Act’). Order dated 20.05.2019 was passed directing the petitioner to pay tax and penalty within seven days, failing which action under Section 130 of the Act shall be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to 1st respondent requesting for release of goods and conveyance. The 1st respondent issued endorsement stating that confiscation proceedings are pending,
hence rejected petitioner request.
Learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the petitioner has filed appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Navanagar, Hubballi, Dharwad Division against the order dated 20.05.2019 passed by CTO in
5 Endorsement No.14/HBC/2019-20 PB-172. In the appeal itself the petitioner could seek release of goods involved in the appeal. When
the appeal is pending against the main order, the petitioner could not have filed writ petition for release of goods which are subject matter of appeal. Section 129 and 130 of the Act provides for release of goods on payment of fine. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. It is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief in the pending appeal, if law permits. JUDGE
CLK
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.