2022 (2) TMI 653 - HC - GST

Lorry Seizure for Undocumented Granite Transport Upheld: Transporters Must Follow Documentation Requirements Under A.P.G.S.T. Act

The HC declined to interfere with the seizure of a lorry detained for transporting granite slabs without proper documentation under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. ... Seizure of lorry vehicle - procedure under statutes contemplated under law not followed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition stands disposed of in similar terms to order CHILLALE SANJIV VERSUS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST), AP STATE TAX, ADDANKI CIRCLE, [2022 (2) TMI 126 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] where it was held that The Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 129(2) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, as also that once such proceeding has been initiated, the same is now required to be taken to its logical conclusion. Petition disposed off. Issues:Petitioner seeks relief against the seizure of a lorry without due process under statutes. Similar issue previously disposed of. Agreement from both parties to dispose of the current petition similarly. Disposition of the current writ petition in line with the previous order. Reproduction of the previous order regarding the detention of a vehicle carrying granite slabs. Arguments presented by both parties regarding the legality of the detention under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Reference to judgments supporting the detention of goods and conveyances in transit. Emphasis on the need to follow the procedures under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Mention of a Supreme Court judgment discouraging direct interference by High Courts in seizure cases. Decision not to interfere in the matter based on the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Disposal of the writ petition with liberty for the petitioner to pursue the ongoing proceedings and seek provisional release of the vehicle.Analysis:The petitioner approached the Court seeking relief against the seizure of their lorry without following due process as required by law. It was noted that a similar issue had been previously addressed and disposed of by the Court. Both the petitioner's counsel and the respondents' representatives agreed to dispose of the current petition in a similar manner to the previous order. Consequently, the Court disposed of the current writ petition in alignment with the order dated 30.12.2021 passed in a prior case.The reproduced order from the previous case highlighted the detention of a vehicle due to the absence of documents related to the goods being transported, specifically granite slabs. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the truck, argued that as a transporter hired by a granite factory, they were not responsible for the goods being carried. The respondents, citing the A.P.G.S.T. Act, defended the detention, stating that the law allows for the seizure of goods and conveyances in transit. They emphasized that the lack of documentation regarding the taxed granite led to the presumption of evasion, justifying the vehicle's detention.Furthermore, the respondents contended that the petitioner should follow the procedures outlined in the A.P.G.S.T. Act, including responding to the notice issued and providing necessary documentation. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment cautioning against direct intervention by High Courts in seizure cases, emphasizing compliance with prescribed procedures. Ultimately, the Court decided not to interfere in the matter, considering the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and the need to follow through with the initiated proceedings.As a result, the writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to continue the ongoing proceedings and request the provisional release of the vehicle, subject to the authorities' consideration in accordance with the law. Any related miscellaneous petitions were also disposed of as part of the judgment.