Shankar Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that given the submissions made by the respondents, the petitioner would not have any grievance regarding the demand notice dated January 17, 2020. The reasoning was that the owner of the goods had subsequently entered appearance in the same proceeding and was contesting the case on merits. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the petitioner, as the driver, would not be the ultimate party against whom the tax liability or penalty would fall. The Court did not delve into the merits of the tax and penalty demand itself, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of the owner's participation. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The petitioner, Shankar Yadav, a truck driver, challenges a demand notice dated January 17, 2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax. The notice, in Form GST MOV-09, demanded tax and penalty. The truck driven by the petitioner was intercepted on January 14, 2020, carrying a large quantity of Pan Masala. Discrepancies in valuation were found, leading to the detention and seizure of the goods. A notice was initially issued to the driver. The owners of the goods, M/s Kay Pan Sugandh Masala Pvt. Ltd. and M/s K.P. Sugandh Ltd., submitted a reply. The petitioner argues he is merely a driver and not liable for the tax and penalty, as he was carrying the required documents under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice for tax and penalty issued to the petitioner, who is only the driver of the intercepted vehicle, is legally sustainable, considering the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules, particularly concerning the liability of the person in charge of conveyance versus the owner of the goods? Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner, a driver, is not liable for the tax and penalty. He was carrying the documents required under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Proceedings for confiscation or other actions should be initiated against the owner of the goods under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Rules, 2017, not against the driver. Respondents (State and Union of India): The demand notice is a procedural formality. The proceedings will ultimately be drawn against the owner of the goods. The petitioner was served only in his capacity as the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of interception. The owner has since entered appearance and is contesting the case on merits.