2023 (12) TMI 467 - HC - GST

Vehicle Confiscation Challenge Resolved: Petitioner Granted Permission to Secure Release After Meeting Legal Bond Requirements

HC granted petitioner liberty to contact 1st respondent for vehicle release after furnishing required bond and sureties. The writ petition challenging ... Confiscation of vehicle - release of goods carriage on furnishing bond and surety - interim custody of vehicle - writ relief by way of mandamusConfiscation of vehicle - release of goods carriage on furnishing bond and surety - Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of the confiscated vehicle on furnishing bond and sureties and whether the writ petition should be entertained for that relief. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner stated before the Court that he would apply to the enforcement authority for release of the goods carriage and was willing to furnish bond and sureties against the demand of tax and penalty. Having recorded this undertaking, the Court declined to grant substantive relief by way of quashing the confiscation order and instead disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to approach the authority. The 1st respondent was directed to take a decision on release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing bond and sureties, and to do so in accordance with law. The Court thus left the matter for administrative determination by the competent authority subject to legal requirements governing release on bond and surety.Writ petition disposed with liberty to petitioner to apply to the 1st respondent for release; 1st respondent to decide on release on furnishing bond and sureties in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is finally disposed of by recording the petitioner's offer to seek release from the enforcement authority and directing the authority to consider release on bond and sureties in accordance with law; no substantive quashing of the confiscation order was granted. Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the confiscation of a vehicle by the 1st respondent and the petitioner's request for its release through a writ petition.Confiscation of Vehicle (Issue i): The petitioner sought to quash the order confiscating their vehicle with registration number KL55Z3669, issued by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P-5.Interim Custody of Vehicle (Issue ii): The petitioner requested a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction to direct the 1st respondent to provide interim custody of the vehicle to them within a specified timeframe.English Translation of Documents (Issue iii): Additionally, the petitioner asked the court to dispense with the English translation of documents produced in the Vernacular Language.Other Reliefs (Issue iv): The petitioner also sought any other reliefs deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case.In the judgment, the counsel for the petitioner indicated that the petitioner would approach the 1st respondent for the release of the goods carriage vehicle, KL 55 Z 3669, and expressed willingness to provide bond and sureties for any tax or penalty obligations.Considering this submission, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to contact the 1st respondent for the vehicle's release. The 1st respondent was directed to decide on the release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing the necessary bond and sureties as required by law.With the above directions and liberty given to the petitioner, the writ petition was finally disposed of by the court.