Case Law Details
Vijay Mamgain Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The facts are that in this case an order of penalty and tax was made against the goods but since the same was not paid within 14 days proceedings under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 were initiated. At that stage also the owner of the goods did not come forward to pay the tax and penalty or the fine in view of the confiscation. However, the owner of the conveyance i.e. the petitioner went and paid the fine imposed on the vehicle but, since the vehicle was not released he has filed the present writ petition.
Learned State counsel states that a perusal of Sub Section 1 of Section 129 of the Act clearly shows that on detention the goods and the vehicle can only be released on the payment of the applicable tax and penalty and the mere fact that Section 130 of the Act is subsequently invoked would not take away the rigour of Section 129 (1). She has further argued that there is no warrant for the proposition that the owner of the goods and the owner of the conveyance are two separate entities because as per her under the main Sub Section 2 of Section 130 of the Act it is clear that whoever wants the goods or the vehicle to be released has to pay the tax, penalty and fine imposed for all the things i.e. to say for the goods also as well as for the conveyance also. As per her, the proviso would not affect this basic provision.
In CWP No.18392 of 2021 titled as M/s Shiv Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 04.02.2022 this Court held has held that the principle of vicarious liability can not be extended indefinitely. In the present case also to force the owner of the conveyance to pay the tax, penalty and fine on the goods would mean that the owner of the conveyance is also foisted with the vicarious liability of any mis-declaration/fraud by the owner of the goods despite the proviso engrafted on to Sub Section 2 of Section 130 of the Act.
Consequently, the argument of the learned State counsel is rejected and it is directed that the conveyance be released forthwith. The goods obviously would be confiscated and disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
