9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 205 - HC - GSTValidity of detention order - release of detained goods alongwith conveyance - section 130 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act are still pending before the second respondent this court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if the second respondent is directed to forthwith release the goods as well as the conveyance upon the petitioner paying the tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 51, 084/- under protest which shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same in case the same is adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit with the second respondent an amount of Rs. 51, 084/- as computed by the said respondent in the impugned notice dated 15.9.2019 issued under section 130 of the CGST Act. Upon the petitioner depositing such amount the second respondent shall forthwith release the conveyance together with the goods of the petitioner - petition allowed in part.
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under section 129(1) of the CGST Act and show-cause notice under section 130 of the CGST Act. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in trading metal scraps, challenged an order of detention and a show-cause notice issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The detention occurred when the conveyance carrying the petitioner's goods was intercepted due to the absence of the invoice during a change of conveyance. Despite the petitioner's willingness to pay tax and penalty, the goods were not released. The petitioner filed a petition seeking relief. Initially hesitant about the penalty amount, the petitioner later agreed to pay tax and penalty under protest. The High Court directed the release of goods and conveyance upon the petitioner paying &8377; 51,084 under protest, subject to the final outcome of proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act. The court considered the interest of justice and allowed the petition partly, with specific directions for the petitioner to deposit the mentioned amount with the respondent for the release of goods and conveyance. This amount was to be treated as a deposit under protest, preserving the petitioner's right to challenge any adverse order in the ongoing proceedings. This judgment addresses the challenge to a detention order and a show-cause notice under the CGST Act. The court noted the specific circumstances leading to the detention of goods and the petitioner's efforts to comply by offering to pay the tax and penalty. The court's decision to partially allow the petition was based on ensuring justice by directing the immediate release of goods and conveyance upon the petitioner's deposit of a specified amount. The court emphasized that this deposit was made under protest, safeguarding the petitioner's right to challenge any unfavorable outcome in the ongoing proceedings. The judgment reflects a balance between upholding the law and protecting the petitioner's rights, providing a practical resolution to the dispute at hand.
|
