2025 (5) TMI 1271 - HC - GST

Detention of vehicle and goods - legality of the seizure - imposition of tax and penalty - No opportunity of proper hearing - violation of natural justice - non-compliance with the GST Act - HELD THAT - Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents but despite repeated opportunities no response has been submitted. However learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is now listed before the appellate authority on 22.05.2025. And it is submitted that every possible endeavor shall be made by the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal as also the application referred to above on the date fixed. At any rate he submits that if for any unforeseeable circumstances the matter is not heard and decided on the date fixed at best the appeal as also the application moved by the petitioner shall be finally disposed of within two weeks thereafter. In the wake of the above and particularly the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents we refrain ourselves from passing any formal order/directions at this stage. Accordingly the petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. However in the event the matter is not decided as indicated above the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this appeal itself for its restoration and necessary orders.

Summary

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, before Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, heard a petition by M/s Batra Brother Private Limited challenging Order No. ZD380722000063W dated 13-07-2022. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the detention of its vehicle and goods and the imposition of tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 13,69,748/-, alleging violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and non-compliance with the GST Act. The petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus directing release of the seized goods.The petitioner had filed a statutory appeal on 26.07.2022 with a 25% pre-deposit and separately applied for release of the goods, but both remained undecided for years, causing prejudice to the petitioner's rights.Respondents did not file a response but counsel stated the appeal is listed for hearing on 22.05.2025 and undertook to ensure its disposal along with the release application on that date or within two weeks thereafter if delayed.The Court, relying on this assurance, refrained from issuing formal directions and disposed of the petition accordingly, while allowing the petitioner liberty to seek restoration and further orders if the appeal is not decided as promised.Key holding: The Court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and timely disposal of appeals, stating, "the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application... for its restoration and necessary orders" if the appellate authority fails to act as committed.