Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 171 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of seizure memorandum - Truck detained and goods seized - Petitioner contended that the truck and goods could not have been seized for breach of the provisions of section 69 of the GVAT Act - Held that:- the sole ground for detention of the truck is that the driver or the person in-charge of the vehicle was not carrying a transit pass in Form 405. The provision for carrying a transit pass in Form 405 is relatable to section 69 of the GVAT Act, which bears the heading “Transit pass for transit of goods by road through the State”. Though the alleged breach is of the provisions of section 69 of the GVAT Act, the second respondent has resorted to the powers under subsection (4) of section 68 of the GVAT Act of seizing the goods and detaining the truck. It appears that since under Section 69 of the GVAT Act, the authorities under the said Act not empowered to seize the goods and detain the truck, the second respondent has resorted to the colourable exercise of powers under Section 68(4) of the GVAT Act, by seizing the truck and goods contained therein for the alleged breach of the provisions of section 69 of the GVAT Act. The action of the second respondent of resorting to seizure of the goods and the truck is, therefore, beyond the bounds of his authority inasmuch as for breach of the provisions of section 69 of the GVAT Act, the authorities under the said Act cannot resort to the provisions of Section 68(4) of the GVAT Act. The goods carried in the vehicle can be seized only if the requirements of Section 68(4) of the GVAT Act are not satisfied. However, for breach of the provisions of section 69 of the GVAT Act, action can only be taken under that section whereby the concerned officer is empowered to levy penalty not exceeding one and one half times the tax as may be determined, against the driver or person in-charge of the vehicle. With a view to have the seizure of the goods, vehicle can be detained but there is no power to seize the vehicle. The power given to detain the vehicle is to facilitate the seizure of the goods and it cannot be termed as the detention for an indefinite period. The reasonable interpretation would mean that once the goods are found in any vehicle and upon inquiry if it is found unsatisfactory, the authority may seize the goods after detaining the vehicle and after the seizure of the goods, the goods may be kept by the authority at any place where it is permissible, but the vehicle is required to be released thereafter. So, in the present case, not only have the respondent officers, in purported exercise of powers under Section 68(4) of the GVAT Act, wrongly seized the truck along with the goods that it was carrying, but despite the fact that Section 68(4) of the GVAT Act only permits the officer to detain the truck, till date they have not released the truck in clear violation thereof. The action of the respondent authorities, therefore, is in breach of the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the GVAT Act. The impugned seizure memorandum, therefore, cannot be sustained and the respondent is directed to release the truck along with the goods contained therein. - Decided in favour of petitioner
|