Rajesh Kumar Mishra vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. He had previously filed a similar writ petition (WPA 7678 of 2023) which was disposed of on May 8, 2023, with a direction for the authorities to inform the petitioner of the conditions for releasing his seized truck. The petitioner claims he did not fulfill these conditions due to illness and has now filed the present writ petition after recovering. The Court noted that the petitioner's explanation for not complying with the earlier order was inadequate, lacking particulars or documentary evidence regarding his medical condition. The Court found that the petitioner, having failed to furnish the required bond for goods release despite a prior court order, was not entitled to further indulgence.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's explanation for failing to comply with the conditions for the release of the seized truck, as directed by the order dated May 8, 2023, was inadequate. The Court found that the petitioner did not disclose any particulars regarding his medical condition or provide any documentary evidence to support his claim of illness. Consequently, the Court was of the view that the petitioner, having failed to furnish the bond for the release of the goods despite a prior court order, was not entitled to any further indulgence. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition was not to prevent the petitioner from approaching the respondents to get his goods and vehicles released in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's explanation for failing to comply with the conditions for the release of the seized truck, as per the order dated May 8, 2023, is adequate, thereby entitling him to further indulgence from the Court under Section 129 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was unable to fulfill the conditions for the release of the seized truck due to falling ill after the previous court order dated May 8, 2023. He submitted that upon recovering, he filed the present writ petition. Revenue/State's Contention: The State contended that the explanation provided by the petitioner for non-compliance was inadequate. They pointed out the lack of particulars and documentary evidence to support his claim of illness. The State argued that despite a prior court order, the petitioner failed to furnish the bond for the release of the goods, and therefore, no further indulgence should be granted.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3), Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
20th August, 2024 (AK) 141 …for the petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray Md. T.M. Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. N. Chatterjee …for the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed in court today be kept on record.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’).
It appears that on identical set of facts challenging the order dated 10th February, 2023, the petitioner had moved a writ petition which was registered as WPA 7678 of 2023. 4. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated May 8, 2023 directing the respondent authorities to intimate the petitioner within two days from the date of communication of such order
2 the conditions to be fulfilled, for release of the seized truck-in-question as per law and upon the petitioner fulfilling the conditions to release the truck-in-question.
The petitioner contends that since the petitioner subsequently fell ill, no steps were taken to furnish the bond for getting seized truck release in terms of Section 129 of the said Act.
The petitioner says that after recovering from his illness, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
I find that the explanation given by the petitioner in failing to comply with the conditions for release of the vehicle in terms of the directive passed by this Hon’ble court dated 8th May, 2023 is inadequate. No particulars as regards the medical condition of the petitioner have been disclosed. No documentary evidence to support his medical condition has also been disclosed.
Records reveal that despite obtaining an order passed from this Court on 8th May, 2023 and on the petitioner’s own showing, the petitioner having failed to furnish bond to get the goods released, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any further indulgence.
The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
3
Dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the respondents to get his goods and vehicles released in accordance with law.
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.