2018 (4) TMI 1291 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – [2018] 2 GSTL 46 (Kar), 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 439 (Kar.) – Release of detained vehicle alongwith goods – KGST Act – CGST Act – detention of goods on the ground that the invoice and other documents not produced – grievance of the petitioner that despite the full tax amount pertaining to the tax invoice submitted before the second respondent has been deposited, no vehicle/conveyance and goods are released till date – Held that: – It is an admitted fact that no documents were carried by the driver/person in-charge of the goods vehicle at the time of interception of the goods vehicle on 08.03.2018. The ownership of the goods as well as quantum of penalty levied are also in dispute. These are all the factual disputes to be adjudicated before the Appellate Authority.
–
This Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case – appeal allowed by way of remand.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
arried in the conveyance used as means of transport/vehicle was not available with the driver. The second respondent seized the vehicle/conveyance along with the goods and directed the driver to furnish the documents. Subsequently, the petitioner furnished the invoice on the next day i.e., on 09.03.2018. Considering the same, the Investigation Officer verified the goods and issued a notice computing the proposed tax and penalty under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sect ion 129 of the CGST Act as well as KGST Act. On service of notice, the petitioner submitted reply through the counsel and on consideration of the same, second respondent passed the order imposing the tax and penalty under the KGST Act as well as under CGST Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the full tax amount pertaining to the tax invoice submitted before the second respondent has been deposited, no vehicle/conveyance and goods a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
has been established by the petitioner to determine the tax and penalty under Section 129 (1) (a) of the CGST Act. Hence, the second respondent having no other option, determined the t ax and penalty under Section 129 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner has paid only a sum of ₹ 1,22,886/- towards the tax and penalty amount against the total amount of ₹ 18,47,300/- determined by the Authorities. Hence, the vehicle has not been released. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner without exhausting alternative remedy, cannot approach this Court under the writ jurisdiction seeking the relief as sought for. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is prima facie apparent that the main dispute is relating to the valuation of the goods carried in the goods vehicle. It is an admitted fact that no documents were carried by the driver/person in-charge of the goods vehicle at the time of interception of the good
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =