Govindwal Sahib Vanaspati Mills v. State Of Rajasthan / The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur / The Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Sri Ganganagar / State Tax Officer, Ward I Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar
[Citation -2020-LL-0205-151]

Citation 2020-LL-0205-151
Appellant Name Govindwal Sahib Vanaspati Mills
Respondent Name State Of Rajasthan / The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur / The Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Sri Ganganagar / State Tax Officer, Ward I Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Relevant Act SGST
Date of Order 05/02/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags preliminary objection • alternative remedy • release of goods • tax liability • penalty • tax evasion


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 48/2020 M/s Govindwal Sahib Vanaspati Mills, Through Its Partner Rajeev Kumar Age About 59 Years, S/o Late Sh. Raj Kishore, 136 Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar Punjab Pan Csfpm0146Lgstin03Aadfg5879N1Zx. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Commercial Taxes Department, Sri Ganganagar. 4. State Tax Officer, Ward I Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S.Bedi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhansali. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 05/02/2020 This writ petition has been filed by petitioner firm seeking direction to respondents to release goods along with vehicle intercepted on 9/12/2019 under Rajasthan Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 ( RGST Act ) and has sought inquiry by independent agency against role of respondent no. 4 on account of his having exercised powers in illegal and arbitrary manner. It is inter alia indicated in writ petition that petitioner is registered dealer under Punjab GST Act, 2017 and having its factory at Taran Taran Road, Sangrana Sahib, Punjab. It is claimed that vehicle No. PB-03-AT-4881 loaded with cotton (Downloaded on 18/06/2021 at 12:49:23 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-48/2020] seed oil from M/s. Sunil Oil Mills, Goluwala, Rajasthan in favour of petitioner was intercepted by respondent no. 4 on 9/12/2019 at Sriganganagar by issuing MOV-1 and MOV-2 indicating that owner/driver/person-in-charge of goods has tendered documents mentioned in Annex.2 for verification and upon verification authority was of opinion that inspection of goods under movement was required to be done under provisions of Section 68(3) of RGST Act read with Central GST Act, 2017 on account of fact that E-way bill was dated 7/12/2019 and it was claimed that vehicle broke down on same date at starting point and on account of contradictory statements, documents were also required to be examined. petitioner approached respondents for release of goods along with vehicle and made written request on 16/2/2019 (Annex.5) under provisions of Section 129 of RGST Act. It is alleged in petition that despite petitioner being entitled for release of goods under Section 129 (3) of RGST Act, respondent no.4 acted unreasonably in not releasing goods in question. During pendency of petition, additional affidavit was filed placing on record certain other documents i.e. Form MOV-3, MOV-4 and MOV-6, whereby, goods have been detained indicating findings based on statements of driver of truck regarding violation of provisions of GST Act and with reference to GPS Status of vehicle in question, finding that gross violation of provisions of GST Act were made, notice was issued under Section 129 (3) of Act to driver/person-in- charge of vehicle indicating that goods can be released upon furnishing security collateral to amount payable under (Downloaded on 18/06/2021 at 12:49:23 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-48/2020] clause (a) or clause (b) of said sub-section along with calculation applicable for purpose. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner with reference to provisions of Section 129 of Act that petitioner being consignee of goods was deemed to be owner and was, therefore, entitled to seek release of goods under Section 129 of Act and, therefore, action of respondents in denying release of goods despite petitioner being ready to comply with requirements of provisions is wholly unjustified and, therefore, respondents be directed to comply with requirements of Section 129 of Act and release goods. response to writ petition has been filed by State inter alia raising preliminary objection that petitioner does not have locus standi to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as petitioner has failed to establish his ownership on goods found in intercepted vehicle. It is submitted that from material which has come on record, it is apparent that goods are from one M/s. Sunil Oil Mills, Goluwala and though E- Way bill pertains to petitioner, from statements of driver, records of Toll Plaza and GPS location of driver/goods-in- charge it is apparent that goods which were loaded by M/s Sunil Oil Mills on 7/12/2019 have already been delivered to petitioner on 8/12/2019 and in second round vehicle (oil tanker) was refilled for some other firm and it started its journey under same E-way bill and other documents only with motive to avoid tax liability and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. (Downloaded on 18/06/2021 at 12:49:23 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-48/2020] Submissions have been made that pursuant to notice MOV-6 and MOV-7 dated 28/12/2019 requisite order has been passed on 14/1/2020, which order is appealable under Section 107 of Rajasthan GST/ Central GST Act and, therefore, petition is not maintainable. Along with reply, copies of material including statements of goods-in-charge, Toll Plaza transaction, VRN Report, booking register of carrier, submissions pertaining to GPS location along with notice MOV-6 and MOV-7 issued to petitioner have been placed on record. respondents have also placed on record order dated 14/1/2020 (Annex.R/5), wherein, order has been passed requiring driver/person-in-charge to show cause as to why proposed tax & penalty should not be paid by him, wherein, all above facts have been indicated. Submissions have also been made that under provisions of Section 107 of Act any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under Act can file appeal and, therefore, petitioner, if feeling aggrieved also can file appeal and petition filed seeking release of goods on that count deserves to be dismissed. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have perused material available on record. bare look at various submissions made and material which has been placed on record reveals that though petitioner has tried to make out case of having made innocuous prayer of seeking release of goods under provisions of Section 129(1) of Act, copious material produced by respondents shows modus operandi being employed for purpose of evasion of tax liability under provisions of (Downloaded on 18/06/2021 at 12:49:23 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-48/2020] Act and on that count status of petitioner in seeking release of goods claiming himself to be owner, if at this stage is recognized by respondents, is likely to prejudice plea/stand which has been taken by respondent department. status of petitioner as owner of goods is in question inasmuch as while petitioner relies on E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 for claiming himself consignee, claim of respondents is that goods already stand delivered insofar as E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 is concerned. Therefore, claim of petitioner as owner qua goods which are loaded on detained vehicle has to be determined by competent authority in accordance with law and said aspect cannot be preempted by directing release of goods to petitioner. Further, no rejoinder has been filed by petitioner disputing and/or contradicting material which has been produced by respondents by way of detailed reply and, therefore, at this stage, purportedly innocuous prayer made by petitioner cannot be taken on its face value so as to order for release of goods/vehicle. order is open to appeal as submitted by learned counsel for respondents and, therefore, on account of availability of alternative remedy also interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India in present nature matter would not be justified. In view of above discussion, no case for interference is made out in writ petition and same is, therefore, dismissed. (ARUN BHANSALI),J 12-baweja/- (Downloaded on 18/06/2021 at 12:49:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Govindwal Sahib Vanaspati Mills v. State Of Rajasthan / Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur / Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Sri Ganganagar / State Tax Officer, Ward I Anti Evasion, Sri Ganganagar
Report Error