Karnataka High Court
M/S Aastha Alumina Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.12156 OF 2022 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S AASTHA ALUMINA PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SRI RAM ENCLAVE NEAR KIIT COLLEGE
MARUTHI KUNJ ROAD, GURUGRAM
HARYANA-122 102
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR BIJENDRA KUMAR ARYA ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAJESH D. M., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERICAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT)
"VANIJYA THERIGEGALA SANKEERNA"
80 FEET ROAD, SIDDARAMESHWARA
EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572 103
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 24.03.2022
BEARING NO.ACCT (ENF)/MRK/TMK/GCE-102/2021-22
ISSUED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-B ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The goods vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.HR-74/B-7851 was intercepted by the respondent-authorities at Hirehalli Industrial area, Tumkur. It was found that the driver of the goods vehicle was in possession of the tax invoice and the E-way bill to transport goods from Gurgaon, Haryana to RMZ Ecoworld SEZ, Devarabeesanahalli, Bengaluru. In the process, it had traveled from Gurgaon to Bengaluru but before entering Bengaluru without delivering the goods had traveled back to Tumkur and at that point of time, it was intercepted and the driver of the vehicle did not have the necessary documents to carry the goods from Bengaluru to Tumkur. For that reason, the proceedings under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act') and the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for 3 short 'KGST Act') has been initiated and the impugned order of detention under Section 129(2) and the order of demand of tax and penalty have been passed. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition has been filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that while traveling to Bengaluru the driver was required to get a job work done on some of the goods at Hirehalli, Tumkur and by mistake, he traveled towards Bengaluru and after realizing the same, he has traveled back to Hirehalli, Tumkur and within one hour after interception, he has produced the relevant E-way bill showing the relevant destination and without considering the same, the impugned orders are passed and the same are liable to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the order of demand of tax and penalty and provide bank guarantee regarding rest of the amount till resolution of dispute.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, submits that the 4 petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy as the impugned orders can be challenged by way of an appeal as per Section 107 of the CGST Act/KGST Act and for that reason, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the availability of alternative efficacious remedy of appeal. Nevertheless he prays that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner being ready to deposit 25% of the tax and penalty demanded and willing to provide Bank Guarantee for the remaining amount, an interim protection may be granted to him so that he can approach the Appellate Authority in this regard.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that if the petitioner were to deposit the amounts and provide bank guarantee as undertaken, the authorities are willing to release the goods vehicle along with the goods seized. His submission is placed on record.
7. Hence, the following:
5
ORDER
(i) The respondent-authorities are directed to release the goods vehicle bearing No.HR-74/B-
7851 belonging to the petitioner after due verification along with the goods seized subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the order of demand of tax and penalty imposed by way of the impugned order dated 01.04.2022 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition and providing Bank Guarantee in respect of the balance amount;
(ii) The petitioner is given liberty to approach the appropriate authority by way of an appeal in accordance with law. If an appeal is so preferred, the authorities shall exclude the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the instant writ petition while calculating the limitation;
(iii) The petitioner shall keep the Bank Guarantee valid till the disposal of the appeal;
(iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.