Madras High Court
Tci Freight vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 18 October, 2022
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.Nos.2313 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.17705 of 2022
TCI Freight
(A Div. of Transport Corporation of India Ltd.)
Represented by its Authorized Signatory
Regional Office at
No.92, 1st Floor,
Gee Gee Crystal Building,
Dr.Radha Krishna Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. ...Appellant
Versus
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Adjudication, Intelligence-I,
No.1, Greams Road,
6th Commercial Taxes Annex Building,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Deputy State Tax Officer,
Roving Squad-III,
Manjabakkam Toll,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25.08.2022 passed in
W.P.No.18753/2022
For Appellant : Mr.Aparna Nandakumar
For Respondent : Mr.C.Hansharaj,
Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
JUDGMENT
The appellant has come forward with the present appeal challenging
the order in W.P.No. 18753/2022 dated 25.08.2022.
2. The appellant is a Logistic Service Provider and also a Transporter.
The appellant has filed the appeal against the impugned order dated
25.08.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18753/2022. By
the impugned order, the learned single Jude has also disposed of the two
other writ petitions.
3. The facts on record indicate that the petitioner was transporting
goods on behalf of M/s. Panasonic Carbon Pvt.Ltd. The consignor was
transporting Carbon Electrodes from Madhavaram Hub, Chennai to
M/s.Eveready Industries India Ltd., in Assam. The goods were to move
Page 2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
through Tada Andhra Pradesh where the Consignor, Panasonic Carbon
Limited was located. On 26.06.2022, the appellant's vehicle carrying the
consignment, was intercepted at Redhills, Tamilnadu. The appellant's vehicle
carrying consignment of M/s. Panasonic Carbon India Ltd., Tada meant for
Eveready Industries India Ltd., Assam was seized and thereafter, notices
under Section 129 of Central GST Act, 2017 were issued. Thereafter, notice
in Form-6 & 7 dated 27.06.2022 was issued to M/s. Panasonic Carban India
Ltd. It is, at this stage, the appellant rushed to this Court and filed
W.P.No.18753 of 2022 which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge
with certain observations as detailed below.
" 20. Considering the matter in full conspectus, the
bench concluded that ITAT is not a Court but it exercises
judicial powers that have the widest amplitude. Thus, the
conclusion was that the Tribunal must be held to have power
to grant stay and such power was incidental and necessarily
to its appellate jurisdiction. The ratio of the aforesaid order
would be fully applicable to the present scenario as well.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the meanwhile,
final detention order in Form MOV-09 & 10 came to be issued on
19.07.2022 and served on the appellant on 21.07.2022. Aggrieved by the
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
same, the appellant has also filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate
Commissioner in Appeal No.396/2022 after making mandatory pre-deposit of
25% in terms of amended Section 107. Learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the observation in the impugned order would come in the
way of the maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant in Appeal
No.396/2022. Learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that
during the interregnum, the goods and lorry has also been released on
26.09.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the present writ appeal
and submit that the writ appeal is academic and liable to be dismissed. That
apart, it is submitted that the appellant being a Logistic Company, whose
interest is only confined to vehicle used for transport, cannot espouse the
cause of the consignor or the consignee. Therefore, the writ petition filed by
the appellant is misconceived which has been rightly rejected.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. We are of the view that no useful purpose will be served for
delineating the substantial issue of law as the issue is academic at this point
of time, as the goods have already been released. However, we make it clear
Page 4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
that since the appeal is filed before the Appellate Commissioner together with
mandatory pre-deposit as contemplated under section 107 of the Central GST
Act, 2022, we leave all the issues open to be canvassed before the Appellate
Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (C.S.N., J.)
18.10.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
vsi
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Adjudication, Intelligence-I,
No.1, Greams Road,
6th Commercial Taxes Annex Building,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Deputy State Tax Officer,
Roving Squad-III,
Manjabakkam Toll,
Chennai.
Page 5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
C.SARAVANAN,J.
vsi
W.A.No.2313 of 2022
18.10.2022
Page 6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
