9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 991 - HC - GSTDetention of goods with vehicle - it is alleged that the dealer appears to be involved in bogus billing practice or making false claim of ITC for the period of August, 2019 and September, 2019 - section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods - HELD THAT - Issue notice, returnable on 18th November, 2019.
Issues: Confiscation of goods and vehicle under section 130 of the CGST Act despite no discrepancy found during physical verification.
In this case, the petitioner's advocate highlighted that the vehicle and goods were detained by respondent No.2 for verification, and the inspection period was extended by three days. Subsequently, physical verification was conducted, and Form GST-MOV-04 confirmed no discrepancies in the goods. However, the respondents proceeded under section 130 of the CGST Act, issuing notice in Form GST-MOV-10, alleging the dealer's involvement in bogus billing practices or false ITC claims for August and September 2019. An order was passed confiscating the goods and vehicle based on these grounds. The petitioner argued that confiscation without any document or goods discrepancy is impermissible. The High Court, considering the submissions, issued a notice returnable on 18th November 2019. Direct service was permitted on the same day. The case raises a crucial issue of confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act despite the absence of discrepancies in the documents and goods during physical verification. The court will likely examine the legality and justification of the confiscation order based on alleged involvement in bogus billing practices or false ITC claims, especially when no irregularities were found during the inspection. The petitioner's argument challenges the validity of the confiscation and seeks relief from the court against the respondents' actions. The outcome of this case will determine the application and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the CGST Act concerning confiscation in similar circumstances where no discrepancies are detected during verification.
|
