KRUSHNA NAVGHAN KARAVADRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in this case, which lies in a very narrow compass, the matter was taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a letter dated 11.3.2019 (Annexure ?A to the petition) issued by the second respondent - State Tax Officer continuing the instructions of restraining transfer of vehicles to RTO authorities and attachment of land.

(3.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of executing service contracts using earth moving machinery such as excavators. The petitioner purchased excavators from outside the State of Gujarat from time to time for executing service contracts and believed that such excavators were not specified goods for the purpose of the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Entry Tax Act") and hence, did not discharge liability under the said Act. Search proceedings came to be conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 6.4.2019, on which date, the petitioner was not available as he was out of station. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings came to be initiated under the Entry Tax Act which culminated into assessment orders under the Entry Tax Act for the years 2013 ?14, 2015 ?16 and 2016 ?17 imposing entry tax along with penalty on purchase of excavators. Thereafter, as some of the submissions of the petitioner were not dealt with in the orders, rectified orders came to be passed wherein further penalty came to be imposed upon the petitioner. On 20.5.2017, the petitioner preferred the first appeals challenging such assessment orders along with stay applications. During the pendency of the stay applications, the second respondent proceeded to initiate coercive recovery proceedings against the petitioner and sent intimations to various RTO authorities on 13.9.2017 directing them not to allow the petitioner to transfer any vehicles. The second respondent also attached the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner.