Kasturi Lal vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Kasturi Lal, is the person in charge of vehicle No. RJ 13D 7361, which was intercepted on 17.12.2022 while carrying goods. The authorities issued form GST MOV-02 on 30.12.2022, finding that goods were transported without valid documents and the driver was involved in tax evasion. Discrepancies included allegations of fraudulent E-way bills, goods loaded from Anupgarh but invoiced from Delhi, inconsistent RFID data, failure to produce account books, and an impractical route. The petitioner approached the High Court on 08.02.2023. The owner was initially unwilling to deposit the penalty but ready to pay the fine. Subsequently, a release order in Form GST MOV-5 was issued on 28.03.2023 after the petitioner paid the requisite tax amount, releasing the confiscated goods and conveyance.
Held
The Court noted that a remedy of appeal is available against the order dated 30.12.2022, wherein a penalty of Rs. 65,558/- was imposed. Given that the goods and conveyance have since been released upon payment of the requisite tax amount, the exigency of urgency regarding confiscation no longer exists. Therefore, the Court, in view of the law laid down in The State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others, 2023 (96) GST 120, held that the petitioner may avail his remedy of appeal in accordance with law before the competent authority. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request for the release of a conveyance when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, particularly after the goods and conveyance have been released upon payment of the requisite tax amount. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court due to the rejection of the release order and the subsequent payment of tax. The urgency of the matter regarding confiscation no longer existed after the release. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their reply, highlighted the discrepancies found during the interception, indicating tax evasion. They also noted that a release order was eventually issued after payment of the tax amount, implying the matter might have been resolved or could be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism.
Sections Cited
GST MOV-02, GST MOV-5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024:PHHC:009745-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.01.2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Kapoor, Addl., A.G., Punjab. (On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, proceedings are conducted through Video Conferencing) **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral) [1].
Challenge herein is made to the order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.4, wherein the request for release of conveyance was rejected on the ground that the person has not been authorized by the driver or owner of the vehicle. [2].
Perusal of the said order would go on to show that as many as six vehicles were the subject matter of consideration before the authorities to whom the request had been made. PRINCE SAINI 2024.01.30 11:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2024:PHHC:009745-DB [3].
Petitioner herein is stated to be pe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.