Konka Yerriswamy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court noted that a similar issue was before it in W.P.No.29999 of 2021, which was disposed of on 30.12.2021. Both the petitioner and respondents agreed that the present writ petition should be disposed of in similar terms. The Court, in its previous order in W.P.No.29999 of 2021, considered the facts and submissions and was not inclined to interfere. It held that once proceedings under Section 129(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act have been initiated, they must be taken to their logical conclusion. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the initiated proceedings and pray for provisional release of the vehicle before the concerned authorities, which were to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. The ratio is that High Courts should not interfere with the seizure of goods and vehicles under GST laws when proceedings have been initiated, and parties should pursue remedies before the statutory authorities, including seeking provisional release.

Facts

The petitioner, owner of lorry bearing No. AP27 TY 8259, filed a writ petition seeking release of his vehicle, which was seized by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) without following due procedure. The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional rights. The vehicle was detained for allegedly transporting granite slabs without proper documentation. The petitioner argued that as a transporter, he had no control over the goods and that only the consignment should be liable for detention, not the vehicle. He relied on previous High Court judgments allowing similar vehicles to be released. The respondents argued that Section 129(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (A.P.G.S.T. Act) permits detention and seizure of vehicles in transit when no valid documents are produced, indicating potential tax evasion. They also stated that a notice in FORM GST MOV-02 was issued, providing an opportunity to show cause.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's lorry bearing No. AP27 TY 8259 by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the detention of the vehicle is permissible under Section 129(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act when no documents relating to the goods being transported were produced, as contended by the respondents. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the law does not permit the detention of a vehicle, and only the consignment is liable. He relied on various judgments of Coordinate Benches where vehicles were directed to be released under similar circumstances. He also claimed to be a mere transporter with no involvement in the goods. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that Section 129(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act clearly provides for detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. They argued that the law makes no distinction between conveyances and goods, and since no papers were produced for the granite slabs, the authorities were justified in detaining the vehicle. They also pointed out that a notice in FORM GST MOV-02 was issued, providing an opportunity for a show-cause hearing, thus satisfying principles of natural justice. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in The State of Uttar Pradesh & others versus M/s. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. to argue that High Courts should relegate assessees to appropriate authorities for release of seized goods.