Icici Bank And Another vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioners. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought and was granted permission to withdraw the present writ petition. The reason for withdrawal was to enable the petitioners to challenge a subsequent order that had been passed under Section 129(3) of the HGST Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue their challenge against the subsequent order. No finding was reached on whether the movement of the vehicle constituted a "supply" under GST.

Facts

The petitioners, ICICI Bank and its receiver, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the detention of a mortgaged vehicle. The vehicle was being moved to facilitate the Debt Recovery Tribunal's order for taking physical possession. The petitioners argued that this movement did not constitute a "supply" under the GST scheme. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. This was to allow them to challenge a subsequent order passed under Section 129(3) of the HGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the movement of a mortgaged vehicle, undertaken by a secured creditor and receiver to comply with a Debt Recovery Tribunal order for taking physical possession, constitutes a "supply" under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) scheme, thereby attracting detention under GST provisions. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the movement of the vehicle was not a "supply" as contemplated under the GST scheme. They did not rely on any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents in the provided text. Revenue/State: No arguments were recorded for the respondents in the provided text.