9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 740 - HC - GSTProceedings against the transporter of goods - release of detained goods with vehicle on payment of applicable tax and penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods, by the transporter - the owner of the goods does not come forward for such tax and penalty - case of writ petitioner is, that the transporter cannot be proceeded against even if the allegations against the owner of the goods i.e., dealer under TNGST Act, are true? HELD THAT - As the vehicle and the consignment have since been released, this writ petition is disposed of preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to assail the aforesaid proceedings dated 20.08.2019 either by way of an appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act or by way of a revision under Section 108 of TNGST Act - If the writ petitioner choses to assail the aforesaid proceedings in any one of the aforesaid manners, the Appellate or Revisional Authority, as the case may be, shall consider the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. Petition closed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the notice issued under Section 68(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Release of the vehicle and consignment under Section 129(1)(b) of the TNGST Act. 3. Allegations against the owner of the goods and the transporter's liability. 4. Disposal of the writ petition and the right to appeal or revision under Sections 107/108 of the TNGST Act. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns a notice dated 30.07.2019 issued under Section 68(3) of the TNGST Act, challenged in a writ petition as the 'impugned notice.' The petitioner argued that under Section 129(1)(b) of the TNGST Act, the vehicle and consignment should have been released upon payment of applicable tax and penalty. The respondent had collected the entire tax liability despite documents showing payment. The respondent alleged that the owner of the goods generated 'e' way bills without supplying goods in previous assessment years. 2. The central issue raised was whether the transporter could be held liable if the allegations against the owner of the goods were true. The State counsel informed that the concerned vehicle and consignment had been released on 20.08.2019. The proceedings culminated in proceedings under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, which were served and handed over to the petitioner's counsel. 3. With the release of the vehicle and consignment, the writ petition was disposed of, preserving the petitioner's right to challenge the proceedings dated 20.08.2019 through an appeal or revision under Sections 107/108 of the TNGST Act. The judgment emphasized that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the matter, leaving all questions open for consideration by the Appellate or Revisional Authority. The order did not impede any legal proceedings, and no costs were awarded. 4. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition, thereby providing a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding the validity of the notice, release of the vehicle and consignment, allegations against the owner of the goods, and the petitioner's right to appeal or revision under the TNGST Act.
|
