Case Details: Royal Steel Versus State of Karnataka (2025) 33 Centax 311 (Kar.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Suraj Govindaraj, J.
- Shri Bharath Kumar V. , Adv. for the Petitioner
- Smt. Jyothi M. Maradi, HCGP for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in procuring scrap metal in bulk for onward sale to its customers and arranged for transportation of such consignments. One such consignment was intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), who demanded verification of documents. Although the petitioner furnished the requisite documents, the vehicle was seized on the ground that the documents were defective. During investigation, the person shown as transporter in the invoice categorically denied having provided any transportation service or having entered into any transaction with the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the detention was arbitrary, as the consignment was supported by proper documentation and taxes had been discharged. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court in writ proceedings.
High Court Held
The High Court held that if the transporter had denied involvement, the invoice mentioning an LR number purportedly issued by him would be suspect, thereby requiring determination of who had actually transported the goods and from whose custody the goods were seized. It observed that these disputed factual issues, including whether applicable taxes had been paid on the goods and their transportation, necessitated a detailed enquiry which could not be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the appropriate remedy lay in filing an appeal under section 129 of the CGST Act and the Karnataka GST Act. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue appellate proceedings.
