2024 (12) TMI 1355 - HC - GST

Vehicle seizure dispute over iron scrap loading location and Section 129 notice compliance resolved through administrative process

The AP HC disposed of a writ petition challenging vehicle seizure involving iron and steel scrap transportation. The petitioner disputed that goods were ... Legality of seizure of the petitioner's vehicle - petitioner would contend that the iron and steel scrap was actually loaded in Autonagar at Vijayawada and not at the address of the office of the consignor - HELD THAT:- There are clear disputes of fact, in as much as, the petitioner contends that no notices and proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the Act, while the 1st respondent contends that such notices were issued strictly within the ambit set out under Section 129 of the Act. Further, there is also a dispute as to the origin of the goods and whether the goods were loaded at Autonagar or they were said to have been loaded at the address of the consignor. Keeping in view, the time lines under Section 129 of the Act, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the proceedings, under Section 129 of the Act, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from today. Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the seizure of the vehicle under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was lawful and in compliance with the procedural requirements stipulated by the Act.Whether the petitioner was entitled to the release of the seized vehicle due to alleged procedural lapses by the authorities.Whether the authorities had sufficient jurisdictional facts to justify the seizure under Section 129 of the Act.Whether the alleged discrepancies in the E-way bill and the movement of goods constituted a contravention of the Act or Rules.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Lawfulness of Seizure under Section 129 of the GST ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governs the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. It requires authorities to issue a show cause notice and pass an order within specified timeframes.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted the petitioner's argument that no show cause notice was issued within the required timeframe, which would entitle the petitioner to the release of the vehicle without further proceedings.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner claimed that no notices were issued, while the respondent contended that notices were served to the driver and proceedings were initiated.Application of law to facts: The court recognized the factual dispute regarding the issuance of notices and determined that these factual issues could not be resolved in the current proceedings.Treatment of competing arguments: The court acknowledged both parties' positions but highlighted the unresolved factual disputes.Conclusions: The court directed the respondent to complete the proceedings under Section 129 expeditiously, allowing the petitioner to present his case.Issue 2: Jurisdictional Facts Justifying SeizureRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 129 of the GST Act requires that the seizure of goods or conveyances be justified by a contravention of the Act or Rules.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered the petitioner's argument that the goods were accompanied by a valid E-way bill and matched the description and quantity, thus not contravening the Act.Key evidence and findings: The respondent alleged discrepancies in the E-way bill timing and suggested potential circular trading to evade tax.Application of law to facts: The court noted the factual dispute regarding the origin and movement of goods, which could not be resolved in the current proceedings.Treatment of competing arguments: The court recognized the conflicting claims about the E-way bill and the movement of goods.Conclusions: The court directed the respondent to complete the inquiry within two weeks, allowing the petitioner to present evidence and arguments.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'All these questions of fact, cannot be gone into by this Court in these proceedings.'Core principles established: The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under Section 129 of the GST Act and recognized the need to resolve factual disputes through appropriate proceedings.Final determinations on each issue: The court disposed of the writ petition with a directive for the respondent to complete the proceedings under Section 129 expeditiously, allowing the petitioner to present his case.