Mohd Waris Mansuri vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer

Held

The Court noted that an interim order was granted on March 12, 2021, and by virtue of this interim order, the action taken by the authorities was considered to have been acted upon. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further remained to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition was disposed of. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding the applicability of Section 129 and Section 126 of the CGST Act or the alleged violations of constitutional provisions. The reasoning for the disposal is solely based on the interim order having been acted upon, rendering the main petition infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that once an interim order leads to the action being completed, the writ petition may be disposed of without further adjudication on the substantive issues raised.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd Waris Mansuri, filed a writ petition challenging the detention of his vehicle on February 25, 2021, while transporting goods from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra. The vehicle was accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill generated on the GST portal. Despite these documents, the vehicle was detained by the Deputy State Tax Officer. The petitioner paid Rs. 37,557/- towards tax under distress. The petitioner sought a declaration that Section 129 of the CGST Act was inapplicable due to minor omissions in documentation, arguing that the demand and collection of tax and penalty were arbitrary and contrary to Section 126 of the CGST Act, and also violative of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He also sought the refund of the amount paid and the release of the vehicle and goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in detaining the petitioner's vehicle on February 25, 2021, despite the presence of a tax invoice and e-way bill, and subsequently demanding and collecting Rs. 37,557/- towards tax and penalty, is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether Section 129 of the CGST Act has no application to minor omissions or mistakes in documentation, and whether the action of the 1st Respondent in demanding and collecting payment of tax and penalty is arbitrary and contrary to Section 126 of the CGST Act, apart from being violative of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the detention and subsequent demand were arbitrary and illegal, violating Article 14. He argued that Section 129 of the CGST Act should not apply to minor documentation errors and that the actions were contrary to Section 126 of the CGST Act and Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution. The petitioner sought the refund of the amount paid under distress and the release of the vehicle and goods. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court noted that an interim order was granted on March 12, 2021, and by virtue of this order, the action taken by the authorities was considered acted upon.