![]()
Case Summary: M/s Sai Ram Lorry Transport Vs. Deputy Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax (GST)
Case No.: Writ
Petition No. 14605 of 2024
Date of Order: July
11, 2024
Name of Court: High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Summary of the Case: The
petitioner, M/s Sai Ram Lorry Transport, challenged the action of the
respondents in detaining their conveyance vehicle and the goods (fireworks) it
was transporting under the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the detention
and proposed confiscation of the entire consignment were arbitrary and
unlawful, especially since the majority of the goods were covered by proper
documentation.
Facts of the Case:
1. Detention of Vehicle
and Goods:
The petitioner's vehicle,
carrying 266 cases of fireworks along with 56 bundles, was detained by the
first respondent on June 13, 2024, at NH-16 Bypass, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.
The detention was based on the claim that 11 bundles of fireworks were not covered
by any document, leading to the suspicion of clandestine transportation.
2. Issuance of Notices:
Following the
detention, the first respondent issued Form GST MOV-04 (physical verification
report) and Form GST MOV-07, asking the petitioner to show cause why further
action should not be taken. The petitioner responded on June 21, 2024,
requesting the release of all goods except the 11 bundles in question.
3. Subsequent Actions by
Respondents:
The first respondent,
without considering the petitioner's request, directed the payment of penalties
totaling Rs. 3,92,468 for the alleged violations. A notice of confiscation
under Form GST CVT-10 was also issued on June 21, 2024, citing discrepancies between
the fair market value and the invoice value of the goods.
4. Petitioner's Response:
The petitioner replied to
the confiscation notice on June 25, 2024. However, the first respondent
rejected the petitioner's objections without a proper hearing, leading to the
petitioner approaching the High Court for relief.
Submission by Petitioner:
The petitioner argued
that the first respondent did not consider their objections properly and acted
arbitrarily by detaining the entire consignment and vehicle. They contended
that the respondents' actions were contrary to Sections 129 and 130 of the APGST/CGST/IGST
Acts, 2017, and violated the principles of natural justice.
Submission by Respondent:
The respondents
maintained that the detention and subsequent actions were justified based on
the discrepancies in documentation and the difference in the invoice value and
market value of the goods. They argued that the petitioner's objections were
duly considered before passing the orders.
Findings and Decision of
the Court:
1. Consideration of
Petitioner's Objections:
The court found that the
first respondent had failed to properly consider the petitioner's objections
before passing the order. The court emphasized that any decision on the
show-cause notices must be made after hearing the petitioner.
2. Direction to
Respondents:
The court directed the
first respondent to pass necessary orders on the show-cause notices within one
week, ensuring that the petitioner's objections are duly considered. The court
also instructed that any further decisions be made without being influenced by
previous endorsements.
Conclusion: The
High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to
re-examine the case and pass a fresh order considering the petitioner's
objections. No costs were awarded.
Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
