Nikunj Steel vs. State Of Punjab And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation dated 13.3.2019. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law, by passing a speaking order, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court explicitly stated that it was passing this order without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction is for respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The issue of whether the goods and truck should be released, and the underlying merits of the confiscation and penalty, were not decided by the High Court in this instance.

Facts

The petitioner, Nikunj Steel, a registered dealer in iron scrap, purchased goods invoiced on 21.2.2019 and transported them via GR dated 21.2.2019. The goods and truck were intercepted by respondent No.3 at Nabha, District Patiala. A notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the genuineness of goods and the absence of an E-way bill. Respondent No.2 conducted a physical verification, finding the goods in excess. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued a notice for confiscation under Section 130 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and penalty. By an order dated 13.3.2019, respondent No.2 ordered confiscation and demanded tax and penalty totaling ₹2,82,315/-. The petitioner deposited this amount as per Form GST DRC-03 dated 13.3.2019 but the goods were not released. A representation dated 13.3.2019 to respondent No.2 for release of goods yielded no response, leading to the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent No.2 is legally bound to release the goods and the truck to the petitioner, as per Sections 129(1)(a) and 130 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the order dated 13.3.2019, after the petitioner deposited the demanded tax and penalty? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had complied with the order dated 13.3.2019 by depositing the tax and penalty, and therefore, respondent No.2 was obligated to release the goods and the truck. They further contended that their representation dated 13.3.2019 for the release of goods had not been acted upon by respondent No.2. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondents (State of Punjab and others).