Jai Prakash vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Enterprises, challenges an order dated 02.02.2024, issued in FORM GST MOV-11, demanding tax and penalty. The petitioner contends that the seizure of goods and subsequent proceedings are illegal because the driver of the vehicle, Kojha Ram, was wrongly treated as the owner of the goods, and a temporary ID was created in his name. The petitioner asserts they are the rightful owner of the goods, which were in transit under a valid e-way bill and sale-purchase orders in their name. The respondents initiated proceedings based on a notice dated 25.01.2024, leading to the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the order dated 02.02.2024 raises a disputed question of fact, which is not amenable to adjudication in a writ petition. The Court noted that it is not admitted by the respondents that despite possessing documents showing transit under a valid e-way bill and sale-purchase orders in the petitioner's name, proceedings were drawn by creating a temporary ID for the driver. Therefore, the Court found it inappropriate to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court clarified that the appeal filed by the petitioner would be entertained and decided on its merits, even though the impugned order stands in the driver's name, as Section 107 allows any aggrieved person to file an appeal. The period from the filing of the writ petition (02.02.2024) until the date of the order was directed to be excluded for calculating the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of State GST against the driver of the vehicle, creating a temporary ID in his name, are valid when the goods in transit belong to the petitioner and are accompanied by valid documentation in the petitioner's name? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the proceedings are fundamentally flawed as the driver cannot be considered the owner of the goods, and all actions taken against the driver and in his name are therefore illegal. They contend that the authorities were aware of the petitioner's ownership and the valid transit documents but proceeded incorrectly. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue or state respondents. However, the court's observation implies that the respondents initiated proceedings based on their assessment of the situation during transit.