Sonu And Anr vs. Financial Commissioner (Taxation) And Anr

Held

The Court acknowledged the admitted facts and the response filed by the State. It was held that the penalty and fine had been wrongly deposited by petitioner No.1 under her GST registration. The Court directed the Superintendent, Muktsar Ward I, Central GST/Jurisdictional Officer, where the amount was wrongly deposited, to refund the said amount to petitioner No.1 within 10 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. Subsequently, if petitioner No.2 deposits the correct amount in his temporary registration (032300001231TMP), the confiscated goods and vehicle are to be released within one week thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Sonu (petitioner No.1) and Deepak Kumar (petitioner No.2), filed a writ petition seeking the release of confiscated goods and a vehicle. The vehicle, registered in petitioner No.2's name, was detained for alleged contravention of the Punjab GST Act, 2017, and intent to evade tax. A temporary GST registration (032300001231TMP) was generated in petitioner No.2's name based on his identity proof. However, the demanded tax and penalty were paid on 21.09.2023 under petitioner No.1's GST registration, M/s Mitansh Enterprises. The revenue authorities stated that the penalty was wrongly deposited by petitioner No.1 and could not be adjusted against the temporary registration of petitioner No.2. They insisted that the conveyance would be released only upon correct deposit of penalty and fine in the temporary registration of petitioner No.2.

Key Issues

1. Whether the payment of tax and penalty made by petitioner No.1 under her GST registration can be adjusted or refunded for the purpose of releasing the goods and conveyance detained under the temporary GST registration of petitioner No.2, considering the alleged financial handicap of the petitioners? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they face financial hardship and cannot afford to deposit the amount twice. They sought directions for a refund of the amount already paid by petitioner No.1 so that it could be deposited by the correct person (petitioner No.2) for the release of the goods and vehicle. Revenue's contention: The revenue authorities contended that the penalty and fine were wrongly deposited by petitioner No.1 and could not be adjusted in the present case. They maintained that petitioner No.1 could utilize the amount for future tax liabilities and seek a refund from the jurisdictional officer. The conveyance would be released only upon the correct deposit of penalty and fine in the temporary registration created in the name of petitioner No.2.