9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal hearing today. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the seizure memorandum dated 31.3.2016 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, (3), Vadodara whereby he has detained the truck bearing No. GJ-1-CX-8931 and seized the goods of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is engaged in trading in sopari (betel nut) and is registered under the Value Added Tax Law of the State of Delhi. The petitioner placed an order upon M/s. Liberty Supari Trading Company which is a registered dealer in the State of Kerala for purchase of sopari. Pursuant to such order, the goods were moved by the transporter M/s. Ocean Cargo from Mangalore to the place of business of the petitioner in Delhi. M/s. Ocean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed that there were alternative routes for reaching Delhi from Mangalore and the transporter was not aware that the driver would take the truck through the State of Gujarat and hence, he failed to generate online transit pass in the prescribed Form 405. 5. The petitioner appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer on 2.4.2016 and submitted that the goods were seized at Golden cross roads on Vadodara-Halol highway and not at Makarpura Check-post as alleged in the seizure memorandum and the seizure itself was illegal. It was also submitted that there was no power of seizure under the GVAT Act for failure to possess transit pass. Despite the detailed submissions made by the petitioner, the respondents failed to release the truck with the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the second respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are required to be directed to forthwith release the truck and the goods. 7. Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, drew the attention of the court to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second respondent. It was submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the truck was stopped by the officers at Golden Cross-roads on the Vadodara-Halol highway is totally false and baseless and that the truck was stopped at Makarpura check-post and that as the driver did not have the requisite Form 405, the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding one way or the other as to whether the truck had been actually stopped at Vadodara-Halol highway or at the Makarpura check-post. This ground, therefore, does not merit acceptance. 10. There is however, substantial force in the second contention raised by the petitioner. As can be seen from the impugned seizure memorandum, 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". Subsection (1) of section 69 of the Act imposes an obligation upon the driver or person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 sub-section (4) of section 68 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized. 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. 12. In the present case, not only have the respondent officers, in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
