Page 46 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

260 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
treated as having escaped tax and fresh tax and penalty cannot be imposed on
petitioner.
22. We therefore hold that there was no warrant to detain the vehicle
along with goods, demand payment of Rs. 4,16,447/- as tax and penalty under
the CGST and SGST Act, 2017.
23. Since petitioner could not contest it owing to the wedding ceremo-
ny in his family at that point of time in order to be able to secure the release of
the vehicle carrying the goods at the instance of the driver of the vehicle, such
payment has to be presumed as one made due to economic duress and the peti-
tioner cannot be blamed for paying the same without protest, when he had no
choice but to pay it.
24. In our considered opinion, there were no good and sufficient rea-
sons for detention by the 1st respondent of the vehicle and the goods which it
was carrying when the transaction causing movement of the goods was inter-
State in nature and the provisions of the SGST were not shown to have been vio-
lated. Also, there is no warrant to levy any penalty since it cannot be said that
there is any willfulness in the conduct of the dealer.
25. It is settled law that no tax shall be levied or collected except by au-
thority of law as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
26. In Dabur India Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1990) 4 SCC Pg.113 =
1990 (49) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court observed that a litigant cannot be
coerced by the Government to make payment of duties which the litigant is con-
tending not to be leviable. The Supreme Court held that though the State is enti-
tled to enforce payment and to take all legal steps, it cannot be permitted to play
dirty games with the citizens to coerce them in making payments when the citi-
zens were not obliged to make them. It also observed that if any money is due to
the Government it should not take extra-legal steps to recover it.
27. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the impugned action of the
respondents in collecting the amount of Rs. 4,16,447/- from the petitioner to-
wards tax and penalty under the CGST and SGST Act, 2017 under threat of de-
tention of the vehicle carrying the said goods for an absurd reason (‘wrong desti-
nation’) when the vehicle in question carried all the proper documents evidenc-
ing that it was an inter-State sale transaction is clearly arbitrary, violative of Arti-
cles 14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
28. The 1st respondent is directed to refund the same with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from 13-12-2019 till the date of payment within a peri-
od of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
29. The 3rd respondent shall also consider initiating disciplinary action
against 1st respondent for the above conduct of 1st respondent.
30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as above with costs of
Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by 1st respondent.
31. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  166