Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sherasiya Irfan Altabbhai vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.2260 OF 2022
Sherasiya Irfan Altabbhai
S/o Altabbhai Aged about 21 Years R/o Chandrpur, Wankaner
Rajkot, Gujarat State (Owner of the Lorry bearing No GJ 36 T
8952)
... Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District
2 Deputy Assistant Commissioner ST
AP State Tax, Addanki Circle, Addanki Prakasam District
3 The Station House Officer
Darsi Police Station Prakasam District
... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S. Ganesh Babu,
Advocate.
Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2: Mr. S. A. V. Sai Kumar,
Assistant Government
Pleader, Commercial Tax.
Counsel for the respondent no.3 : Mr. V. Maheswar Reddy,
Government Pleader,
Home.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01.02.2022
(Per Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
Heard Mr. S. Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. S. A. V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents no.1 and 2 and
2
Mr. V. Maheswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader, Home, for
the respondent no.3.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court, for the following relief:
"....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India declaring the action of the 2nd
respondent in seizing the lorry vehicle bearing No.GJ 36T
8952 of the petitioner without following any procedure under
statutes contemplated under law as illegal, arbitrary,
highhandedness and against to the principles of natural
justice and violative of Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of
India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to release
the vehicle from their custody and pass such...."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that similar issue was before the Court in W.P.No.29999 of 2021,
which was disposed of by order dated 30.12.2021 and the
present writ petition be also disposed of in similar terms.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents agreed for the same.
5. In view thereof, the present writ petition stands disposed of
in similar terms to order dated 30.12.2021 passed in
W.P.No.29999 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. For the purpose of convenience, the said order is
reproduced hereunder:
" The petitioner claims to be the owner of vehicle which had
been detained by the authorities on the plea that no
3
document with regard to movement of the goods being
carried by the vehicle i.e., granite slabs was produced when
the vehicle was stopped for physical verification.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the owner of the truck and being transporter has
nothing to do with the goods as he was hired by the granite
factory to transport the granite slabs from Prakasam District
to Maharastra.
5. Learned counsel submitted that law does not permit any
detention of vehicle as only the concerned
consignment/goods is liable to the same. Learned counsel
relied upon various judgments of Coordinate Benches in
which after putting certain conditions, the vehicle has been
directed to be released in favour of the owner.
6. Learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, submitted
that the action of the authorities is under the Andhra
Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short,
„A.P.G.S.T. Act‟) and Section 129(2) thereof clearly provides
for detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances
in transit. Thus, it was contended that the law does not
make any distinction between the conveyances and the
goods and, in the present case, admittedly, no papers or
documents were produced relating to the granite, which was
subject to taxation under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, leading to a
presumption that there was evasion and the authorities have
rightly detained the vehicle in question. Further, it was
4
submitted that the authorities have also issued notice to the
person concerned under FORM GST MOV-02. Learned
counsel submitted that in the notice form itself, opportunity to
show cause within seven days after receipt of the notice is
given and also a date is given for appearance. Thus, learned
counsel submitted that sufficient safeguard against violation
of principles of natural justice and giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing are self contained. It was submitted
that the petitioner should get the proceedings concluded as
per the provisions of A.P.G.S.T. Act. Further, with regard to
the contention that he is a mere transporter, learned counsel
submitted that the same is a matter of fact between the
petitioner and the owner of the goods, which besides
requiring proof, cannot also be a matter of consideration
under the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, as admittedly, it
was the vehicle in question on which the finished granite
was being transported and upon interception, valid papers
have not been furnished till date.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the Supreme
Court, in the judgment dated 22.11.2019, in The State of
Uttar Pradesh & others versus M/s.Kay Pan Fragrance
Pvt. Ltd., [(2020) 5 SCC 811] has observed that the High
Court ought to have been loathe to entertain the writ petitions
questioning the seizure of goods and to issue directions for
its release and further that the High Court, in all such cases,
ought to have relegated the assessees before the appropriate
5
Authority for complying with the procedure prescribed as
applicable for release (including provisional release) of the
seized goods.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Keeping in mind the
provisions of Section 129(2) of A.P.G.S.T. Act, as also that
once such proceeding has been initiated, the same is now
required to be taken to its logical conclusion.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to get the proceeding which has
already been initiated by the authorities taken to its logical
conclusion, besides praying before the authorities concerned
for provisional release of the vehicle, which shall be
considered by the authorities concerned in accordance with
law expeditiously."
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed
of.
________________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J)
________________________
(RAVI NATH TILHARI, J)
C.C. by 04.02.2022
B/o. Pab
6
7
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
WRIT PETITION No.2260 OF 2022
Date : 01.02.2022
Pab
8
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: WRIT PETITION No.2260 OF 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
ORDER
No DATE NOTE
1. 01.02.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J
and
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
(Per Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
Writ Petition is disposed of.
(vide separate judgment)
(B/o)
Pab
