2019 (5) TMI 957 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - Detention of goods with vehicle - carrying fresh tamarind from the petitioner to its purchasing dealer in Tamil Nadu - the description of the goods mentioned in the invoice, did not tally with the goods under transport - Circular dated 12.07.2018 - HELD THAT - The proceeding, under challenge in this Writ Petition, is merely a show cause notice. It is only if it is exfacie evident, from a bare reading of the show cause notice, that it suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, would this Court be justified, in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere. We are unable to hold that the contents of the show-cause notice, if accepted as true, ex facie reflect inherent lack of jurisdiction for the 1st respondent to issue the said notice. Questions as to whether the matter falls within the ambit of Section 129(1) or Section 130(1) of the CGST Act, whether or not the Circular issued by the Board on 13.04.2018 is applicable, whether tax and penalty can be levied besides confiscation of the goods and the vehicle etc should be examined, in the first instance, by the first respondent on the petitioner submitting his reply to the confiscation show-cause notice, and the order passed by the first respondent can, thereafter, be subjected to challenge in appropriate legal proceedings. The petitioner is permitted to submit their reply to the show cause notice within one week from today; and to direct the first respondent to pass orders thereupon at the earliest and, in any event, not later than one week from the date of receipt of the petitioner s reply to the show cause notice - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional validity of the confiscation notice issued under the CGST Act.
2. Applicability of Circulars issued by the Chief Commissioner of State Tax and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
3. Distinction between Sections 129(1) and 130(1) of the CGST Act for confiscation proceedings.
4. Proper procedure for challenging a show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the jurisdictional validity of a confiscation notice issued under the CGST Act. The petitioner sought a mandamus to declare the action of intercepting and detaining a vehicle carrying goods as arbitrary and illegal. The confiscation notice was issued under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, alleging evasion of taxes. The petitioner contended that the notice lacked jurisdiction as it directly proceeded to confiscation without first demanding tax and penalty under Section 129(1). The court examined the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act to determine the legality of the notice.

2. The judgment discussed the applicability of Circulars issued by the Chief Commissioner of State Tax and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Circulars provided guidelines on detaining vehicles and confiscation of goods for tax evasion. The court analyzed these Circulars to ascertain if the actions of the authorities were in line with the prescribed procedures. The Circulars played a crucial role in determining the validity of the confiscation notice and the subsequent proceedings.

3. The court deliberated on the distinction between Sections 129(1) and 130(1) of the CGST Act concerning confiscation proceedings. Section 129 dealt with detention and seizure of goods for contravention of tax laws, while Section 130 outlined confiscation of goods and conveyances for intentional tax evasion. The judgment examined whether the facts of the case warranted action under Section 129 or Section 130, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal provisions based on the circumstances.

4. The judgment outlined the proper procedure for challenging a show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that the court would intervene only if the notice exhibited an inherent lack of jurisdiction. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice and instructed the authorities to pass orders based on the merits of the reply. The judgment highlighted the significance of allowing the administrative process to unfold before seeking legal redress.

Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the confiscation notice under the CGST Act, considering legal provisions, circulars, and procedural aspects to ensure a fair and lawful resolution of the dispute.