TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Procedural Fairness in Vehicle Seizure: Petitioner Ordered to Submit Affidavit and Participate in Inquiry Under KGST Act</h1> <h3>Mr. Nandish S/O Sri Dodyedegowda Versus State Of Karnataka, Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance) - 02</h3> The HC addressed a vehicle confiscation case under the KGST Act. The court directed the third respondent to adjudicate the rectification application, ... Confiscation of vehicle alongwith goods - Evasion of GST in connivance with the transporter or not? - Rectification of error apparent on the face of the record as contemplated u/s 161 of the KGST Act - HELD THAT:- This Court will have to decide on whether the third respondent must be directed to consider the petitioner’s application dated 18.11.2022 notwithstanding certain typographical errors, and whether the petitioner must be reserved with liberty to file affidavit to establish his case that he has not connived with the transporter and therefore there cannot be confiscation of the subject vehicle. If the rectification application is considered and adjudicated, the question of considering connivance may not survive. However, for complete adjudication, the respondents must consider the question of connivance so that the petitioner can pursue all grounds for complete adjudication. The petition stands disposed of, directing the third respondent to simultaneously adjudicate on the petitioner’s rectification application dated 18.11.2022 notwithstanding the errors in mentioning the vehicle number in certain places in the application. Issues:1. Confiscation of vehicle under Section 130 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007.2. Rectification application filed under Section 161 of the KGST Act.3. Question of connivance between the petitioner and the transporter.Analysis:1. The petitioner's vehicle was confiscated under Section 130 of the KGST Act, and the petitioner challenged this order while also seeking rectification under Section 161. The petitioner did not insist on challenging the confiscation order but focused on rectification and the question of connivance.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the rectification application was filed due to an error on the face of the record, stating that the confiscation of the vehicle was done despite the confiscation of goods. The court noted previous instances where owners contended lack of connivance with transporters, leading to directions for consideration by the respondents.3. The court considered the submissions and directed the third respondent to adjudicate on the rectification application despite typographical errors. The petitioner was instructed to file an affidavit with necessary details to facilitate the adjudication process. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to appear before the third respondent on a specified date for further inquiry.4. The court emphasized that it did not comment on the merits of the rectification or connivance issue, leaving it for the third respondent to decide after providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision aimed at ensuring a comprehensive adjudication of the matter, including the question of connivance between the petitioner and the transporter.5. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition by directing the third respondent to consider the rectification application and the connivance question, while instructing the petitioner to participate in the inquiry process and provide all necessary materials for a thorough examination of the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of a fair and lawful consideration of the petitioner's claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
