M/S Govindwal Sahib Vanaspati Mills vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's status as the owner of the goods is in question. While the petitioner relies on an E-way bill dated December 7, 2019, to claim consignee status, the respondents' claim is that the goods were already delivered concerning that E-way bill. Therefore, the petitioner's claim of ownership of the goods on the detained vehicle needs to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the law, and this cannot be preempted by directing the release of the goods. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not filed a rejoinder disputing the material produced by the respondents, and therefore, the purportedly innocuous prayer for release could not be taken at face value. Additionally, the Court found that an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the RGST Act was available, making interference under Article 226 of the Constitution unjustified. Consequently, no case for interference was made out in the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Govindwal Sahib Vanaspati Mills, filed a writ petition seeking the release of goods and a vehicle intercepted on December 9, 2019, under the Rajasthan Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (RGST Act). The vehicle, carrying cotton seed oil from M/s. Sunil Oil Mills, Goluwala, Rajasthan, to the petitioner in Punjab, was intercepted by respondent no. 4. The interception was based on an E-way bill dated December 7, 2019, and contradictory statements from the driver regarding the vehicle breaking down at the starting point. The petitioner requested the release of goods under Section 129 of the RGST Act. Subsequently, the goods were detained, and a notice under Section 129(3) was issued, indicating release upon furnishing security. The respondents contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as the goods were allegedly already delivered on December 8, 2019, and the vehicle was refilled for another firm under the same E-way bill to evade tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the consignee, has the locus standi to seek the release of goods under Section 129 of the RGST Act, and if so, whether the denial of release by the respondents is justified? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 129 of the RGST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner, being the consignee, is deemed the owner and is entitled to seek release of goods under Section 129 of the RGST Act. The respondents acted unreasonably in denying release despite the petitioner's readiness to comply with the requirements. Respondents' arguments: The petitioner lacks locus standi as ownership of the goods is disputed. Evidence suggests the goods were already delivered on December 7, 2019, and the vehicle was refilled for another firm under the same E-way bill to evade tax. Furthermore, an order has been passed on January 14, 2020, which is appealable under Section 107 of the RGST Act, making the writ petition not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy.