Allahabad HC: Seizing Vehicles Without Notice, Transporting Services Affects the Civil Rights of Transporters Since Trucks are Capital Assets

The Allahabad High Court ruled that seizing a vehicle transporting goods without prior notice infringes upon the civil rights of the transporter, considering the truck as the essential capital asset of the transporter.

The petitioner is displeased with the confiscation of their vehicle, and the legal proceedings have been initiated under Section 129 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST Act’). The primary focus is on the goods discovered in the truck intercepted on 22.11.2023. Consequently, a show cause notice on MOV-07 was issued to the dealer.

However, the petitioner contends that no show cause notice was specifically issued to them, addressing why the concerned truck should not be seized. Consequently, it is argued that the seizure of the truck, as per the order dated 5.12.2023 issued on MOV-09, constituting a penalty order, is entirely one-sided against the petitioner.

A Division Bench consisting of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that, by statutory provisions, the petitioner may not be eligible for the release of the truck unless they deposit Rs. One lakh, as stipulated in proviso-1 of Section 129(6) of the Act.

Read Also:- MP, KA, and UP States Achieve Highest Growth Rate in GST Revenue

Given these circumstances, it seems that the petitioner is entitled to a fair hearing before the authority to present their explanation and demonstrate that they were not involved or played no active role in the alleged illegality attributed to the dealer concerning the goods transported in the mentioned truck.

Presently, the penalty order does not indicate any conduct on the part of the petitioner that suggests or establishes collusion with the importing dealer, M/s Royal India Enterprises.

Also Read:- Allahabad HC: A Notice Must Be Served on Legal Representative of Deceased Before GST Proceedings

The court determined that the truck, being a valuable property and a key asset utilized by the transporter to generate revenue and income, led to a perception that the petitioner’s significant civil rights were adversely affected in an ex-parte manner. Additionally, specific conditions for the release of the vehicle were outlined.