Seized Lorry Cannot Be Released Through Writ Petition - Follow Section 129 APGST Act Procedures for Detained Vehicles

The HC dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus for release of a seized lorry, directing the petitioner to follow procedures under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The vehicle was detained during transit for transporting granite without proper documentation, suggesting potential tax evasion. The Court declined to interfere with the statutory process, noting that Section 129(2) of APGST Act makes no distinction between goods and conveyances for detention purposes. The petitioner was granted liberty to request provisional release through proper channels, which authorities must consider expeditiously.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of a seized vehicle without following due procedure under statutes.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition, challenging the seizure of a lorry vehicle by the 2nd respondent without following proper legal procedures. The petitioner claimed the seizure was illegal, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice, violating constitutional articles 19 and 21. The petitioner requested the release of the vehicle and appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent. The counsel for the petitioner referred to a previous case disposed of similarly and requested a comparable resolution for the current petition, which was agreed upon by the respondents' counsel.

The Court disposed of the present writ petition in line with the order dated 30.12.2021 from a previous case. The order reproduced highlighted the detention of the vehicle due to a lack of documentation during a physical verification stop. The petitioner, as the owner of the truck hired for transportation, argued that only the goods, not the vehicle, should be subject to detention. The Government Pleader contended that the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, allows for the detention and release of goods and conveyances in transit without distinction. The authorities detained the vehicle due to the absence of documents related to taxable granite being transported, indicating potential tax evasion.

The Government Pleader cited the A.P.G.S.T. Act's provisions and emphasized the notice issued to the concerned person, providing an opportunity to show cause and appear within a specified timeframe. The counsel argued that the petitioner should follow the Act's procedures, and being a mere transporter was not a relevant consideration. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the counsel stressed that writ petitions challenging seizures should be directed to the appropriate authority for compliance with prescribed procedures. The Court, after considering the submissions and Section 129(2) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, declined to interfere, emphasizing the need to conclude the initiated proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the ongoing proceedings and request provisional release of the vehicle, to be considered by the authorities promptly.

The Court's decision was based on the legal provisions and the need to follow due process under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, emphasizing the importance of completing the initiated proceedings. The judgment highlighted the distinction between goods and conveyances in transit and the necessity for compliance with statutory procedures to address issues related to seizures effectively.

---