VIMAL ALLOYS PVT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release its goods and vehicle on furnishing of Surety bond dated 8.1.2014, Annexure P.4.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated, in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a dealer duly registered under the provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") and is engaged in the business of trading of iron and steel goods. In the normal course of its business, the petitioner sold three consignments of goods i.e. metal rolls vide bills No.567, 568 and 569 dated 2.1.2014 for Rs. 4,22,442/-, Rs. 2,41,414/- and Rs. 3,22,333/- respectively. The petitioner booked the said consignments with M/s Orissa Punjab Transport Company. The goods were loaded in the vehicle on 2.1.2014 by the said company. The said transporter had to pick up another consignment of goods i.e. cycle parts from Ludhiana to which the petitioner had no connection. The cycle parts which were to be picked from Ludhiana were to be loaded on the top of the metal rolls sold by the petitioner. Therefore the driver of the vehicle decided to load the consignment of the petitioner first and thereafter started journey towards Ludhiana for loading the consignment of cycle parts. After loading the cycle parts from Ludhiana, when the driver was yet to leave the city of Ludhiana, he was intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO) at Ludhiana. On enquiry by the officer, the driver of the vehicle produced various documents pertaining to the items loaded in the vehicle. The ETO detained the vehicle on certain grounds like verification of documents and goods excess than the covering documents. According to the petitioner, at the time of issuing the notice, the detaining officer did not mention the specific section or clause under which the vehicle had been detained as subject of the notice was for the "Detention of goods under section 51(6) (a) (b) read with explanation under section 51(7) (d) of the Act." The petitioner appeared before the concerned ETO alongwith its books of account and other documents. According to the petitioner, the ETO questioned that it should have carried e-ICC forms as per Rule 64B of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005 (in short, "the Rules") and because of its failure to do so, the goods were liable to the detained under section 51(6) (b) of the Act. The petitioner pointed out that the e-ICC forms could not be got issued as the transporter had to load more goods from Ludhiana and he had assured that the same would be got issued before the exit of such goods from the State of Punjab. It was also pointed out that in case the e-ICC forms would have been issued for the consignment of the petitioner, then the transporter at Ludhiana would not have been in a position to get e-ICC forms generated for the subsequent consignment of cycle parts in the same vehicle which was yet to be loaded from Ludhiana. The ETO however insisted that he would release the goods only on payment of 50% penalty or on furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of 50% of the value of the goods. Thereafter, the petitioner took legal advice from his lawyer that as per amended Section 51(6) (b) of the Act, offence under Rule 64 B is made out only after the vehicle makes an exit from the State of Punjab and in case the necessary information is given at the Virtual Information Centre before the exit of goods from the State of Punjab, then no offence under section 51 of the Act is made out. The petitioner prepared surety bond on 8.1.2014 and got the same attested by the ETO Mandi Gobindgarh which was furnished to the ETO Ludhiana on 15.1.2014 alongwith the detailed reply. The ETO however, refused to acknowledge the receipt of the surety bond and stated that he would neither accept nor reject the said bond in writing. Hence the present petition for release of the vehicle and the goods of the petitioner being illegally detained by the respondent authority.

(3.) Upon notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 by Shri Manmohan Singh, ETO-cum-Detaining Officer wherein it has been inter-alia stated that the goods of the petitioner are one of the five specified goods and therefore, uploading of information through virtual e-ICC is compulsory before putting the same into transit for export out of the State. This information is required to be submitted in Form VAT 12 electronically for which the petitioner had due ID and password issued by the department. The transporter at Ludhiana had uploaded the information through e-ICC of all the goods booked by him except the goods of the petitioner. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.