TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... speaks a volume about the conduct of the officers under the GVAT Act or their lack of knowledge of the statutory provisions. It is not the case of the second respondent that any procedure as envisaged under sub-section (7) of section 67 of the GVAT Act has been followed in the present case. Thus, the vehicle does not appear to have been stopped under section 67(6) of the GVAT Act. From the impugned notice, it is difficult to cull out as to what is the nature of the information sought for by the second respondent. All that is stated by the second respondent in the notice is calling upon the driver to explain his statement that the goods were required to be off loaded at Changodar. Evidently therefore, the requirements for invocation of the powers under section 70A of the GVAT Act have not been satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the impugned detention order passed under section 70A of the GVAT Act suffers from the breach of principles of natural justice as well as lack of application of mind and therefore, stands vitiated. The impugned detention order is quashed and set aside. Since the truck in question has been released during the pendency of the petition, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Trading Company, Delhi and it was a door delivery to the consignee s address. It is the case of the petitioners that for reasons best known to him, Shri Rais Ahemad Ansari, the driver of the said truck, took the route via Changodar on the way from Nagpur to Delhi and hence, on 22.03.2016, the truck entered the State of Gujarat and the driver of the truck obtained a transit pass in Form 405 at the Songadh check post. On 22.03.2016, the truck was stopped at Changodar road by the authorities and the driver was asked to produce the invoice, lorry receipt and duplicate and triplicate copies of the transit pass in Form 405, which came to be produced by the driver. The transit pass clearly showed that the goods were only in transit in the State of Gujarat. The respondent authorities took the invoice, lorry receipt and the duplicate and triplicate copies of the transit pass in Form 405 along with the registration certificate of the truck and the driver s licence in their custody. On the same day, that is, on 22.03.2016, at 01:30 p.m., the second respondent issued a notice to the driver of the truck alleging that the goods were to be offloaded at Changodar and called upon the driver to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the vehicle in question was detained and the goods were seized by the respondent authorities at Changodar, Near Sanand in the exercise of powers under section 70A(1)(b)(i) of the GVAT Act. It was submitted that such powers had been exercised pursuant to information received from intelligence as well as the statement of the driver of the vehicle, whereby he had stated that the goods which were being carried in the truck were going to be offloaded at Changodar. It was submitted that as per the invoice, the goods were to be transported from Nagpur to New Delhi and hence, there was no question of the goods entering the State of Gujarat which would be deviating from its normal route to Delhi resulting into excess movement of 800 kilometres. Thus, it is evident that the goods were going to be unloaded in the State of Gujarat at Changodar. It was submitted that in exercise of the powers under section 70A(1) (b)(i) of the GVAT Act, the respondent authorities are empowered to call upon any person who has custody of goods of a dealer for the purpose of delivery or transport, to furnish information in respect of such goods, or to permit inspection thereof. Therefore, in the light ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin Gujarat State OR other State to Gujarat wherein no Form 402 / 403 has been carried by the carrier of the goods in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.MH-40-N-2325 (truck no.), therefore, I, the undersigned, has reason to believe that the tax on such goods is or is likely to be evaded the said vehicle was stopped at Changodar Road ------ (Address) under section 67(6). the notice under section 70(A) in Form 401 was issued and served upon to the transporter viz. Bikaner Asham Rd. (Transporter name), Ahmedabad. In view of the said notice in Form 401, Shri Rais Ahemad, driver of the said vehicle on Bikaner Asham Rd. (transporter name) was remind (sic. remained) present before me on today at time 3:00 p.m. He has produced some LR/Bills in respect of the said vehicle. Upon primary verification of the said documents, it is found that he has not produced the required documents viz., System generated Form 403 related to the goods. Name addresses of the purchasers / sellers / owners of such goods and also the reason of showing value of Rs............... in respect of .......................... (total commodity). Thus, the transporter could not produced the required docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce any documents or information under section 70A of the GVAT Act. Moreover, in the detention order, which appears to be a cyclostyled one, there are several blanks and it is difficult to comprehend as to exactly what is the default on the part of the petitioners. 11. Section 70A of the GVAT Act, under which the detention order has purportedly been passed, bears the heading Furnishing of information by others . Sub-section (1)(b)(i) thereof empowers the Commissioner, by an order in writing, to require any person who has custody of goods of a dealer for the purpose of delivery or, transport, to furnish information in respect of such goods, or to permit inspection thereof. Subsection (2) thereof provides that where a person who is required to furnish information or permit inspection of goods or to produce books of accounts, registers or documents, the Commissioner may after giving the person an opportunity of being heard, make an order of detention or seizure of the goods. In the present case, on a perusal of the notice dated 22.03.2016, there is nothing therein to indicate as to what is the nature of information in respect of the goods that was sought for by the second respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vehicle. Moreover, the time granted to the driver to respond to the notice was only one hour. One fails to understand the haste in which the second respondent acted in the present case and as to why no proper notice could be issued to the second petitioner, if at all any information was required by the respondent authorities. Section 70A of the GVAT Act permits the Commissioner to call upon a person who is in custody of goods of a dealer for the purpose of delivery or, transport, to furnish information in respect of such goods, or to permit inspection thereof. In the present case, from the impugned notice, it is difficult to cull out as to what is the nature of the information sought for by the second respondent. All that is stated by the second respondent in the notice is calling upon the driver to explain his statement that the goods were required to be off loaded at Changodar. Evidently therefore, the requirements for invocation of the powers under section 70A of the GVAT Act have not been satisfied in the present case. As noted hereinabove, the impugned detention order passed under section 70A of the GVAT Act suffers from the breach of principles of natural justice as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
