Allahabad High Court: In a writ filed by the petitioner/ transporter being aggrieved by the seizure of his truck, the division bench of Saumitra Dayal Singh and Manjive Shukla, JJ. while stating that as no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before the truck has been seized and since amount of Rs. 1 lakh has otherwise become due for release of the vehicle, gave the following directions:
-
The petitioner was directed to treat the penalty order as show cause notice and to furnish reply to respondent 2 only to obtain release of the truck.
-
Respondent 2 was directed to give an appropriate reasoned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to complete such exercise within one week from the date of compliance made by the petitioner.
Further, while giving the petitioner a right of appeal, it clarified that if release of the truck is granted, it would have no bearing on the seizure of the goods and in the penalty, proceedings arising there from against the dealer.
The proceedings have arisen under Section 129 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST Act’) primarily against the goods found loaded on the above truck that was intercepted on 22-11-2023 and consequently show cause notice was issued to the Royal India Enterprises. (dealer), and no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the truck in question may not be seized. Thus, the petitioner submitted that the seizure of the truck arising out of the order dated 5-12-2023, being the penalty order is wholly ex-parte against the petitioner.
The Court noted that by virtue of the statutory law, the petitioner may not be entitled to release of the truck unless he deposits Rs. 1 lakh as provided under proviso 1 of Section 129 (6) of the GST Act. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to one opportunity of hearing before the authority to furnish his explanation and to establish the fact that there was no involvement of the petitioner or no active role played by the petitioner in the illegality that are attributed to the dealer in relation to the goods being transported on the truck in question.
The Court noted that the penalty order does not appear to bring out any conduct of the petitioner as may indicate or establish collusion between the petitioner and the importing dealer.
Further, it said that the truck, being the valuable property and a capital asset of the transporter, which is utilised to generate income, thus, valuable civil right of the petitioner having being adversely affected exparte.
[Akbar Ali Transport Services v State of UP, 2024 SCC OnLine All 118, Order dated 09-01-2024]
