Syed Mansoor vs. The Superintendent (Pandi)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of a sub-health centre, filed a writ petition challenging an order of detention dated April 20, 2023, issued by the Superintendent (P&I), Central Goods and Services Tax Office, Mahabubnagar. The petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration number KA16 D 1211, was intercepted on April 14, 2023, carrying goods without documentation. Specifically, it was alleged that no e-way bill was produced or generated electronically at the time of interception. The petitioner sought to quash the detention order and secure the unconditional release of the goods and vehicle.
Held
The High Court held that the writ petition was premature. The Court reasoned that after the detention order, the respondents were required to issue a notice of hearing within seven days under sub-section (3) of Section 129 of the Act, specifying the penalty. Subsequently, an order would be passed within seven days of the notice's service. The Court noted that the hearing was fixed for May 01, 2023. It was further held that if the petitioner remained aggrieved after the final order, they would have the liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Regarding the 'proper officer' contention, the Court found it unnecessary to decide at this premature stage, given the respondents' submission that the action was under sub-section (1) of Section 129. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to participate in the hearing and pursue statutory remedies if necessary.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is premature, considering the procedural steps required under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before a final order is passed and an appeal can be filed under Section 107 of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the detention order was illegal and passed by an unauthorized officer. They relied on a circular dated July 05, 2017, from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, suggesting that the proper officer for detention not under sub-section (1) of Section 129 would be the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition was premature because a notice of hearing under sub-section (3) of Section 129 was yet to be issued, and a final order would follow. They also contended that the action was taken under sub-section (1) of Section 129, and therefore, it was incorrect to assert that only an Assistant or Deputy Commissioner could be the proper officer.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER * c$ { {
THE HON,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 12784 of 2o23 ORDER: eer the Hon'bLe the ChrcI J strce UJlal Bhu!,orl Heard Mr. Sameer Gupta, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learncd counsel for the respondents.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing o[ the order of detention dated 20.04.2023 whereby petitionel-'s vehicle bearing No.t(A 16D t2l 1 as well as the goods carried in the said vehicle were detained.
The vehicle was intercepted and inspected b1' rcspondent No.1 on l4.O+.2O23 at 2:O5 pm. [t u'zrs lound that the vehicle was carrying goods without any documentation. According to respondent No. 1, e way bill
\\ras not produced at the time of interception of the vehicle nor generated electronically on 14.04 .2023 at the time of interception. The challenge has been made on the ground that respondenr No.l is not the proper officer and therefore hc did no1 har.e anl authority to order detention of the vch icle oi rhc petitioner.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the proper oflicer is the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Ta-x in terms of the circular dated OS.O7.2O\7 issued b,r' the Central Board of Excise and Customs, since thc impuglted rletention is not under sub-section (l) of Section 129 ol rhe Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2O 17 (briefly, 'rhc Act' hereinafter).
Howevcr, learned counsel for the respondents submits that tl're u,rit petition is premature inasmuch as afler the order of detention, a notice of hearing is required to bc issued under sub-sccrion (3) of Section 129 of the Act
J \,ithin seven days specifying the pena,lty payable, whereafter an order is required to be passed within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Hearing is lixed on Ol .O5.2O23. Once an order is passed and if the petitioner remains aqgrieved, he would have the libertv to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
Insofar proper officer is concerned, learned counsel lor the respondents submits that impugned action rt,as carried out under sub-section (l) of Section 129 of the Act and therefore it would not be correct to say that only the Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax would be the proper officer. 7 . That being the position and on due consideration, we are of the view that the writ petition so filed is premarure. Petitioner may participate in the hearing and if the need be, may avail his remedy under Section 107 of the Act.
rl
Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed Misccllaneous appli<:ations pending, if any, shall stand closcd. Hou,ever, thcre shall be no order as to costs V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR fl ///' SECTION'OFFICER To,1 O^e C{l :: q.r Syed Ashfaq Ahmed Advocate.[OPUC] i 6;; Ca ii sn o-,i*in," Fernandes (senror standing counsel for CBiC) Acvocate IOPUC] 3 Two CD Copres TJ 8s t+-- { T
HIGH COURT DATED:2810412023 ORDER WP.No.12784 of 2423 DISMISSING ]"HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 5ap@ \.f-- ,-]s[: ., i riii \,if q 0 5 JUll 2023 i { '\
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.