Sherasiya Irfan Altabbhai vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms similar to a previous order in W.P.No.29999 of 2021. The Court noted that similar issues had been addressed and agreed to dispose of the present petition accordingly. The Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 129(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. It was held that once proceedings have been initiated under the Act, they must be taken to their logical conclusion. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the initiated proceedings to their logical conclusion and to pray before the authorities for provisional release of the vehicle, which the authorities were directed to consider expeditiously in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Sherasiya Irfan Altabbhai, owner of lorry bearing registration number GJ 36 T 8952, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the action of the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, ST, Addanki Circle, in seizing the lorry as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contended that the seizure was done without following due procedure and violated constitutional rights. The lorry was allegedly detained for carrying granite slabs from Prakasam District to Maharashtra without proper documentation. The petitioner sought the release of the vehicle from the custody of the Station House Officer, Darsi Police Station. The petitioner submitted that a similar issue was addressed by the Court in W.P.No.29999 of 2021, and prayed for disposal of the present petition in similar terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the lorry bearing No. GJ 36 T 8952 by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, ST, without following statutory procedures, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the seizure of the vehicle was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. The petitioner, as the owner and transporter, claimed no involvement with the goods and asserted that only the consignment, not the vehicle, should be liable for detention. Reliance was placed on judgments from Coordinate Benches directing the release of vehicles under certain conditions. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the action was taken under Section 129(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (A.P.G.S.T. Act), which permits detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. They argued that no distinction is made between conveyances and goods, and the admitted lack of documentation for the granite led to a presumption of evasion, justifying the detention. The issuance of a notice under FORM GST MOV-02, providing an opportunity to show cause and appear, was cited as sufficient safeguard for natural justice. The Supreme Court's decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh & others versus M/s. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. was also relied upon, suggesting that High Courts should relegate assessees to appropriate authorities for release proceedings.