Page 89 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] JVG SUPER CARGO SERVICE LTD. v. STATE TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU 23
as determined for goods and services. This obligation to pay Service Tax/GST is
irrespective of Respondent No. 1 taking credit of the taxes paid. Thus, in our
view whether Respondent No. 1 has availed the credit of Service Tax/GST or not
is immaterial and will not effect Petitioner’s right, if any, to recover the same. At
the cost of repetition, we reiterate that this right of recovery would have to be
determined in the context of the clauses contained in the lease agreement, in ap-
propriate proceedings.
10. Lastly, we would also like to observe that Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner is also unable to show any provision of law that puts an obligation on
the tax department to furnish the information for which the mandamus is being
sought. In case the petitioner has no such legal right, the prayer cannot be grant-
ed. We find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Needless to say,
the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
_______

2020 (40) G.S.T.L. 23 (Raj.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
JVG SUPER CARGO SERVICE LTD.
Versus
STATE TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2540 of 2020, decided on 29-6-2020
Seizure of Goods and Vehicle under GST - Provisional release of vehi-
cle only - Scope of - Petitioner is only a transporter owning vehicle and not
owning goods being carried for different persons for which he has shown dis-
claimer - In view of this, while Revenue is at liberty to take appropriate pro-
ceedings for disposal of seized goods, vehicle seized along with goods directed
to be released provisionally on petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for
amount of value of vehicle only - Rule 140 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 8]
Petition disposed of
CASES CITED
Sakeel v. State Tax Officer — 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 419 (Raj.) — Referred .............................................. [Para 3]
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.
— 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.) — Referred .................................................................................. [Para 2]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vikram Kumar Gogra, for the Petitioner.
Shri R.B. Mathur, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is a transporter of the goods and his vehicle along with goods has been confiscat-
ed. Learned Counsel submits that he had filed an appeal which has been rejected.
Against which although a second appeal lies, however, taking into consideration
the present circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for release of
vehicle and against its auctioning.
2. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue department
relies on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in "The State of Uttar
GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  105