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>Tax Penalty for Goods Vehicle Driver Upheld: Timely Notice Served Validates Seizure Under Section 129 GST Act</h1> <h3>RSL Overseas LLP, Kolkata and another Versus State of Odisha and others</h3> 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 ... Levy of penalty on Driver - failure to issue notice within seven days of detention or seizure - seizure of goods vehicle. Penalty on driver - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (1) in section 129 commences with non-obstante clause, to include any person transporting goods or storing them while in transit. Proviso under the sub-section says no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detentions or seizure on the person transporting the goods - it is clear thus that the provision includes the driver. Failure to issue notice within seven days of detention or seizure - HELD THAT:- In TVL. V.V. IRON AND STEELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SARAVANA PANDIAN VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, RS-VII, INTELLIGENCE-II, CHENNAI [2023 (9) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the learned single Judge found facts to be that interception was on 30th August, 2023. In paragraph-12 there was calculation made to say that time for issuance of the notice would have expired on 6th September, 2023. Further facts in that case was, the notice was issued on 7th September, 2023. Reckoning by the learned Judge that time would expire on 6th September, 2023 was taking commencement of period of seven days for issuance of notice within the period of interception as on 31st August, 2023. Interception was on 30th August, 2023. It falls in line with reckoning of periods as in law, to be from the date following. In this case the seizure was on 7th August, 2024. Notice dated 14th August, 2024 issued to the driver thus, in our view, was within 7 days of the seizure. Petitioner in also having informed the authority on 14th August, 2024 that it is the owner of the goods, responsible therefor and ought to be noticed has by conduct sought to extend the period for issuance of the notice. As such the conduct militates against petitioner’s contention on reckoning of the time. Petition disposed off. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
