Lakshmi Venkateswara Brokers vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court did not delve into the rival contentions regarding the validity of the payment receipt. Instead, it took note of the submission by the learned Government Pleader that the goods and vehicle had already been released. Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition as no further cause for adjudication remained. The Court recorded the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and disposed of the writ petition on the basis that the goods and vehicle were released, rendering the petition infructuous. No specific finding was given on the legality of the confiscation notice or the refund claim, as the matter was resolved by the release of goods and vehicle.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a confiscation notice dated August 22, 2019, issued by the second respondent, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought to set aside the notice and obtain a refund of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 70,000 each, which they claimed to have paid on August 20, 2019. The petitioner stated that their goods and vehicle were detained. The respondents, through the Government Pleader, submitted that the payment receipt cited by the petitioner did not pertain to the subject matter but confirmed that the vehicle and goods had already been released.
Key Issues
1. Whether the confiscation notice dated August 22, 2019, issued by the second respondent is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Section 129 of the CGST Act, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the confiscation notice was illegal and sought its setting aside, along with a refund of the tax and penalty paid. They asserted that the payment receipt dated August 20, 2019, evidenced their compliance. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Government Pleader, contended that the payment receipt provided by the petitioner did not relate to the subject matter of the confiscation. However, they also submitted that the detained goods and vehicle had already been released.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti]
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking verbatim the following relief/s: “..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Confiscation Notice dated 22-08-2019 issued by the 2nd respondent directly confiscating the goods as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same as null and void and consequently declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing confiscation Notice dt:22-08-2019 is not valid in the eye of law and accordingly to direct refund the tax of Rs.70,000/- and penalty of Rs.70,000/- paid by the petitioner as advised by the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”
We have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner an
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.