Madhagoni Venkaiah Vs Deputy Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Issues Raised
The petitioner challenges the seizure of his vehicle by invoking provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, asserting that the seizure and subsequent proceedings lack legal validity.
Facts of the Case
1. The petitioner owns a lorry with registration number TS05 UC 2257, seized by the respondent on 03.11.2024 in Vijayawada.
2. The vehicle was transporting 21,625 kgs of iron and steel scrap accompanied by a valid E-way bill generated by the consignor, the 6th respondent.
3. The consignment was destined for Hyderabad from Vijayawada.
Petitioner’s Contention
4. The petitioner’s counsel, J.N. Venkata Suresh Kumar, raised the following arguments:
o Violation of Section 129 Timelines:
Section 129 of the CGST Act mandates issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) within 7 days of seizure and an order within the subsequent 7 days.
In this case, no such notice or order was served, violating the procedural safeguards under the law.
No Contravention Established:
- The goods were transported with a valid E-way bill, and the description and quantity matched the accompanying documents.
- Seizure powers under Section 129 can only be exercised if there is a contravention of the Act or the Rules.
Burden of Proof:
- Relying on M/s K.P. Sugandh Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the counsel argued that the burden lies on the department to establish non-compliance.
Respondents’ Submission
5. The Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) for Commercial Tax contended:
- Notices Issued:
- Detention orders and SCNs were duly served on the vehicle driver, and proceedings were delayed due to the petitioner’s non-cooperation.
Suspected Circular Trading:
