2019 (11) TMI 822 - HC - GST

Imposition of tax and penalty - it is alleged that the truck had reached the check post in Uttarakhand, after the expiry of the time stated in the E-way bill - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The writ petition is wholly premature. Petitioner must give a reply of the show cause notice to the concerned authority explaining the valid reasons as to why delay has been caused and since under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, goods can be released inter alia on petitioner s furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable, in case, the petitioner deposits the security, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods due to expired E-way bill, show cause notice under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017, premature writ petition, requirement to reply to show cause notice, provision for releasing goods on furnishing security, opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty or tax, disposal of writ petition.

Detention of Goods:
The petitioner's truck carrying goods from Himachal Pradesh to Dehradun was detained at the check post in Uttarakhand for reaching after the E-way bill expiry. This led to a show cause notice under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, proposing tax and penalty imposition. The court noted the detention and the subsequent legal action initiated against the petitioner.

Premature Writ Petition:
The court found the writ petition to be premature as the petitioner had not yet responded to the show cause notice. The petitioner was advised to reply to the notice, providing valid reasons for the delay. The law allows for the release of goods upon furnishing security equivalent to the amount payable, pending resolution of the matter.

Opportunity of Hearing and Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment emphasized that any decision on imposing penalty or tax should only be made after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person, in this case, the petitioner. The authority must assign reasons for any penalty or tax imposition. The court highlighted the importance of due process and fair treatment in such cases.

Disposition of Writ Petition:
Considering the above factors, the court disposed of the writ petition. The judgment did not delve into the specifics of the penalty or tax imposition but focused on the procedural aspects and legal requirements to be followed in such cases. The court ordered the supply of a certified copy of the order on payment of usual charges.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Uttarakhand High Court covers the issues related to the detention of goods, the premature nature of the writ petition, the necessity of responding to the show cause notice, the provision for releasing goods on furnishing security, and the requirement for providing an opportunity of hearing before imposing penalties or taxes. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in matters concerning tax and penalty imposition under the CGST Act, 2017.