Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/988/2024 on 22 April, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
No Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
Registrar's order with
Signatures
`
WPMS No. 988 of 2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga and Mr. Gaurav
Kandpal, Advocates for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, Brief Holder for the
State.
3. Petitioner is challenging the notice dated
29.01.2024 and the order passed by
Respondent No. 3 whereby his vehicle was
seized. According to the petitioner, the
impugned orders were passed without
providing any opportunity of hearing to him as
required under Section 130(4) of Uttarakhand
GST Act, 2017. It is further contended that
petitioner is owner cum driver of the truck
which was used for transporting the goods
with valid e-invoice and E-way bill as per the
mandate of Section 68 of Uttarakhand GST Act
read with Rule 138 of Uttarakhand GST Rules,
2017, therefore, petitioner cannot be foisted
with the liability to pay the tax and penalty for
the seized goods. It is further contended that a
sum of Rs. 35,550/- was deposited as fine on
conveyance as per 3rd proviso to sub-section 2
of Section 138 of Uttarakhand GST Act,
therefore, the impugned order, whereby, the
goods and the vehicle have been seized, is
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
4. Reliance has been placed upon a Division
Bench judgment dated 15.02.2022 of Punjab
and Haryana High Court rendered in the case
of Vijay Mamgain Vs. State of Haryana and
Others, where, it was held that the owner of
the conveyance cannot be foisted with the
vicarious liability of any misdeclaration/fraud
by the owner of the goods despite the proviso
engrafted on to Sub-Section 2 of Section 130
of the Act. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the said
judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana
High Court has been affirmed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court inasmuch as the SLP filed by
State of Haryana was dismissed with the
observation that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no interference is
called for.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to a judgment rendered by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Kartar Singh
Vs. State of Uttarakhand (WPMS No. 2152 of
2022). Learned counsel for the petitioner,
however, submits that the said judgment is
distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in that
case, petitioner was given a show-cause notice
as contemplated under Section 130(4) and
moreover in that case, the petitioner who was
the transporter, was not having E-way bill
while in the present case, no show-cause
notice was given to the petitioner and he was
also having E-way bill and the Truck is
detained since 23.01.2024.
6. Learned State Counsel prays for and is
granted six weeks' time to file counter
affidavit.
7. List this matter on 15.07.2024.
8. In the meantime, effect and operation of
the impugned order dated 11.02.2024 and
26.02.2024 shall remain stayed and the
vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration
no. HR62A4377 shall be released on his
furnishing an Indemnity Bond stating that in
the event of an adverse order from this Court,
petitioner shall within seven days, pay the
entire amount of tax and fine to the competent
authority without raising any further plea.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
22.04.2024
U.U.
