Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Ltd and Anr. v. The State of Tripura and Ors
[Citation -2020-LL-0903-61]

Citation 2020-LL-0903-61
Appellant Name Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Ltd and Anr.
Respondent Name The State of Tripura and Ors.
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 03/09/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • period of limitation • procedural propriety • imposition of tax • limitation period • demand of tax • interest • penalty

Page 1 of 4 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) 179 of 2020 For petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Bhowmik, Adv. Gen. Mr. K De, Addl. GA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 03.09.2020 Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. K De, learned Addl. GA appearing for respondents. By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged seizure/detention of goods/materials by Superintendent of State Taxes (the proper officer), Churaibari Enforcement Wing, North Tripura by order dated 17.02.2020 on ground that e-Way bills tendered for goods in movement stood expired when vehicle entered within territory of State of Tripura and were intercepted in Churaibari Check Post. Those, e-way bills are available in Annexure-6 to this petition. Thereafter, notice under Section 129(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and also under Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued to petitioner giving description of goods and tax and penalty imposed for such Page 2 of 4 illegal transportation in violation of provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and also under Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. petitioner was also directed to appear before Superintendent of State Sales Tax, Churaibari Enforcement Wing for hearing of matter and also for considering reply that would be filed by him. Similar notice was also issued for all consignments as are available in writ petition. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that e-Way bills had expired during transit and petitioner was not in position to ask for its renewal to competent authority when vehicle entered into territory of State of Tripura. In such circumstances, Mr. Deb has submitted that in furtherance of notice, final order of demand of tax and penalty was issued upon petitioner vide order No. 69 dated 25.02.2020,and Order No. 70 dated 25.02.2020 which are in Annexure-9 to this petition. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has urged for immediate release of vehicles and goods/materials and for interfering with those orders of detention/seizure and imposition of tax and penalty on petitioner, as stated above, and also to quash orders of demand of tax and penalty. Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned Advocate General appearing for State has submitted that these orders are clearly appealable and, as such, this Court should not maintain this writ petition, inasmuch as, Page 3 of 4 it will affect procedural propriety and would not be in interest of revenue. At this juncture, Mr. Deb, learned counsel for petitioner has pressed in service order dated 25.02.2020 delivered in WP(C) 61 of 2020 styled as Chandimata Iron Vs. State of Tripura and Others, where, in similar situation, this court passed said order, relevant part of which reads as under: Since order under challenge in this petition is appealable, we permit petitioner to pursue such appeal for which, we are informed limitation period has yet not expired. However, considering facts of case, goods of petitioner which are in nature of TMT Bars, shall be released provisionally on petitioner depositing 25% of disputed tax and penalty demand and furnishing bond for securing rest of amount. Similarly, if transporter also approached competent authority for provisional release of vehicle and offers bond for full value of tax and penalty such vehicle shall be released in favour of transporter. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has furtherurged that similar order may be passed in this case but he has pointed out that in present case, period of limitation has already expired and, as such, petitioner may find some difficulty in filing appeal, if analogy of Chandimata Iron (supra) is accepted by this court. Learned Advocate General has generously agreed and submitted that court may pass similar order directing petitioner to deposit 25% of tax and penalty along with bond pledging payment and securing rest of demand, subject to outcome of appeal. Page 4 of 4 Having situated thus, we direct respondents to release detained materials, on deposit of 25% of disputed tax and penalty, by petitioner, as demanded under Annexure-9 collectively and also on securing total demand by bond whereby petitioner shall pledge for payment of for rest of demand subject to outcome of appeal. On deposit of 25% of tax and penalty as aforementioned, and bond authority which detained those goods/materials shall release them within three days from deposit of said amount and bond, as indicated above. So far question of limitation is concerned we are of considered view that if appeal is filed within 15 days from today, period of limitation shall stand extended till expiry of that period of 15 days. In view of above, this petition stands disposed of. copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel for parties for their doing needful. JUDGE JUDGE lodh Balaji Steel Rolling Mills Ltd and Anr. v. State of Tripura and Or
Report Error