S.130 CSGT Act | Absence Of Express Reference To Conveyance In Confiscation Order Does Not Exclude It From Confiscation: Kerala High Court
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that absence of an specific reference to the conveyance within the confiscation order doesn’t exclude it from confiscation.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. said that merely due to the explanation that, whereas ordering the confiscation within the order, the conveyance was not particularly included, it can’t be assumed that, the conveyance of the assessee was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings.
Part 130 of CGST Act offers that any conveyance carrying items with out the duvet of any paperwork or declaration prescribed below the Act shall be liable to confiscation.
The assessee/petitioner is the proprietor of the truck. In accordance with the assessee, he was approached by M/s. Platinum Commerce Hyperlink, Palakkad, the consignor, via a neighborhood transporter in Kerala for transportation of Arecanuts to Delhi.
Accordingly, the car was organized for transportation. The assessee’s truck was intercepted by the 4th respondent/Assistant State Tax Officer and it was discovered that the consignment was being made with out legitimate paperwork. Accordingly, notices had been issued to the consignor and in addition to the assessee via his driver.
Discover of confiscation (Ext.P9) was issued to the motive force of the assessee in addition to to the assessee herein, asking the assessee in addition to the consignor to indicate trigger as to why the confiscation of the products and the conveyance, shall not be ordered invoking the powers below Sec.130 of the CGST Act.
Later, order (Ext.P10) was handed by the third respondent/The State Tax Officer ordering confiscation. On the idea of Ext.P10, Ext.P11 discover was issued granting alternative to the assessee to make the fee of penalty in lieu of the public sale proceedings in accordance with the provisions of CGST Act.
The primary floor on which the problem is made is that, in Ext.P10 order, there may be no particular order of confiscation so far as the conveyance is anxious, as in accordance to the assessee, the mentioned order is in respect of the products alone and the description of the products had been additionally talked about.
The bench noticed that “Sec.130 authorises the confiscation of products and conveyance. Sub.Sec.1(v) of Sec.130 imposes a burden upon the proprietor of conveyance that, the conveyance was utilized in contravention of the provisions of the Act, with out the data or connivance of him or his agent, or the particular person accountable for the car. Thus, it’s evident that, because the statute imposes a burden upon the proprietor to show that the consignment was used with out his data or authorisation, the pure consequence of a present trigger discover proposing the confiscation of conveyance, if there was no reply from the particular person involved or such individuals fails to discharge such burden, could be to verify the proposal within the present trigger discover, in case the proceedings below Sec.130 are in any other case discovered to be sustainable.”
The bench additional famous that no discovering had been entered into by the third respondent/The State Tax Officer, whereas finalizing the confiscation proceedings, coping with any competition with regard to the data of the assessee or lack of awareness, which clearly was as a result of purpose that there was no contest from the half of the assessee, on this regard.
“merely due to the explanation that, whereas ordering the confiscation in para 6 of Ext.P10 order, the conveyance was not particularly included, it can’t be assumed that, the conveyance of the petitioner was exonerated from the confiscation proceedings” said the bench.
The incontrovertible fact that within the operative portion whereas issuing course concerning the gathering of tax, penalty and fines, in lieu of confiscation, it was particularly ordered that, earlier than launch of products and conveyance, the quantities shall be collected. In such circumstances, the confiscation of conveyance was not ordered as per Ext.P10, added the bench.
In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Asgar Ali v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 27856 OF 2022
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: Ajay Ben Jose, Ajay V. Anand and Laya Mary Joseph
