Tax Penalty for Goods Vehicle Driver Upheld: Timely Notice Served Validates Seizure Under Section 129 GST Act

In this tax law case, the HC upheld a penalty notice served on a goods vehicle driver within seven days of seizure. The court determined that serving notice on the driver was legally valid under Section 129 of the Odisha GST Act. The petitioner's challenges regarding notice timing and recipient were rejected, with the court finding no procedural irregularities warranting intervention.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to the order of demand of penalty based on the timing of notice issuance and the proper recipient of the notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner's advocate argued that the notice of penalty was issued one day out of time, contrary to the mandate in Section 129 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He relied on a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Madras to support his argument, emphasizing the importance of the timeline for issuing the notice. The advocate also contended that serving the notice on the driver, instead of the owner of the goods, was an attempt by the authority to deny the owner legal recourse.

The standing counsel for the revenue opposed the writ petition, stating that the driver was the proper person to receive the notice as per the law. He argued that the notice was issued within seven days of the seizure, and the identification particulars related to the seizure were available for the petitioner to pursue further legal actions if needed. The petitioner's advocate countered by highlighting the practical difficulty in accessing legal remedies when the notice was served on the driver, who was not the petitioner's employee.

The court addressed the issue of the proper recipient of the notice, interpreting Section 129(1) to include the driver as a person to be served with the notice. Regarding the timing of the notice issuance, the court analyzed the language of the provision and concluded that the notice issued on the 7th day after the seizure was within the stipulated period of seven days. The court also noted that the petitioner's conduct of informing the authority of ownership of the goods on the same day as the notice issuance did not support an extension of the notice period.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner could seek legal recourse using the information provided in the disclosure Form GST DRC-01. The court found no grounds for interference and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

---