2023 (12) TMI 892 - HC - GST

Tax Authority's Goods Interception Challenged: Petitioners Directed to Address Show Cause Notice Through Proper Legal Channels

Four writ petitions challenging tax authority's interception of goods were disposed by HC. Court directed petitioner to address show cause notice validity ... Seizure of goods - jurisdiction to seize the goods - goods seized from the premises of the consignee - goods not in transit - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Annexure P-3 would go on to show that the inspection of the goods under movement was required to be done to ascertain the genuineness of the goods in transit or verification of documents and it is on that account, show cause notice as such was issued. It is settled principle that the writ Court is not to go into the disputed questions of facts and it is for the petitioner as such to place the relevant material before the respondents to show whether there was any substance in the show cause notice and tax was not being avoided by it. In M/s. Shiv Enterprises case [2023 (1) TMI 842 - SUPREME COURT], the co-ordinate Bench as such had set aside the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh and the notice dated 14.09.2021 issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017. Resultantly, directions were issued to release the conveyance and the goods in question. The order of detention had apparently been passed and also show cause notice dated 14.09.2021 had been issued. The Apex Court accordingly came to the conclusion that it is not for this Court to opine anything whether there was any evasion of tax or not while not interfering in the orders releasing the goods in question. The petitioner has an alternative remedy as such to put forth his case before the respondents and thereafter the respondents shall proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, no cause is made out to entertain the writ petitions any further - Petition disposed off. Issues involved:Applications for interim relief for release of goods alongwith conveyance.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Common questions of facts in multiple writ petitionsThe judgment disposed of four writ petitions filed by the same petitioner challenging the interception proceedings and subsequent actions by the respondents. The petitioner, as the consignor, contested the interception of conveyance and issuance of show cause notice regarding tax liability. The petitioner approached the court claiming that the goods were seized from the consignee's premises. An interim order was passed staying further actions. The core argument raised was regarding the jurisdiction of authorities as the goods were not in transit. The State argued that only the notice was challenged, citing a relevant judgment. The court emphasized that the petitioner must address the show cause notice validity and explain the transactions, as it is not the court's role to act as the Assessing Authority.Issue 2: Alternative remedy and disposal of writ petitionsThe court acknowledged that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to present their case before the authorities and directed them to proceed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioner. All interim orders were vacated as a result of the judgment.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key issues and the court's decision on each matter.