2019 (3) TMI 1770 - HC - GST

Confiscation of goods with conveyance - levy of penalty - section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned notice reveals that in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 thereof, there are various blanks which have not been filled in which makes it manifest that the procedure as required under the provisions of the Act as referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 have not been followed by the competent authority prior to issuance of the said notice. Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 3rd April, 2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice for confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 without following the procedure under section 129 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court focused on the legality of a notice issued for confiscation of goods or conveyance and the imposition of penalties under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner's advocate highlighted that the concerned officer must first issue a notice under section 129 of the Act, provide an opportunity for a hearing, and then pass an order before resorting to section 130 of the IGST Act. However, the impugned notice directly sought to impose penalties without following the required procedure under section 129, which was deemed impermissible in law by the petitioner.

Upon examining the impugned notice, the court noted that several essential details were missing in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, indicating a failure to adhere to the necessary procedure mandated by the Act before issuing such a notice. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to appear and explain why costs should not be imposed for noncompliance with statutory provisions. The court also allowed the respondents to release the vehicle and goods by paying the tax amount mentioned in the notice, clarifying that direct service was permitted in the interim.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the law, particularly concerning the issuance of notices for confiscation and penalties under the relevant Acts. The court's decision to scrutinize the notice's compliance with statutory requirements and allow the respondents an opportunity to rectify the situation by paying the tax amount showcased a balanced approach to upholding legal standards while providing a chance for resolution.