Ms Hindustan Traders Vehalna Chowk vs. Commissioner State Tax

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Department with a proper representation, along with documentary evidence, including the e-way bill. The Court directed that the petitioner's claim should be examined by the Department in accordance with the law. No specific finding was made on the validity of the proceedings or the recovery order, as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner to pursue remedies before the statutory authority. The issue of the release of confiscated goods and the conveyance vehicle was implicitly left to be decided by the proper officer upon examination of the petitioner's representation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hindustan Traders, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by the Uttarakhand State Tax Department. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, a recovery order dated 23-02-2023 passed under Section 130 of the GST Act, and sought a direction for the release of confiscated goods and the conveyance vehicle. The alleged inspection occurred on 16-01-2023. The petitioner admitted that while the goods were transported with a valid e-way bill, it was not produced before the Department. The petitioner subsequently prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition to file the e-way bill and other documentary evidence before the proper officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the Uttarakhand State Tax Department against the petitioner are liable to be quashed, considering the alleged non-production of a valid e-way bill during inspection? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 130 of the GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the goods were transported on the basis of a valid e-way bill, although it was not produced before the Department. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to present this evidence. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the validity of the proceedings or the recovery order. The respondents were represented by learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and counsel for the intervener.