2020 (1) TMI 1166 - HC - GST

Release of detained goods and vehicle - furnishing of bank guarantee - HELD THAT - The 2nd respondent adjudication officer will ensure that the further proceedings pursuant thereto, be adjudicated and finalised after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 to 4 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing so, the 2nd respondent will specifically consider and advert to the plea made by the petitioner that, the abovesaid transaction is effected by the 1st transaction entered into by the petitioner, and that he was not having thorough knowledge relating to the fine tuned aspects emanated from the Goods and Service Taxes Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and that a sympathetic consideration may be made in this case. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenges to CGST, SGST, and Penalty demands in two cases; Release of detained goods and vehicles; Consideration of tax rates and notifications; Opportunity for petitioner's plea to be heard; Timely adjudication by the 2nd respondent.

Analysis:
In the present judgment, the Honorable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas addressed two cases with similar issues raised by the same petitioner. The petitioner sought the quashing of notices demanding remittance of disputed CGST, SGST, and penalties, along with the release of detained goods and vehicles. After hearing both parties, the court ordered the immediate release of the detained goods and vehicles upon the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the respective values indicated in the impugned notices. The adjudication officer, the 2nd respondent, was directed to finalize the proceedings promptly, preferably within 3 to 4 weeks from the date of the judgment, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Moreover, the court instructed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's plea that the transaction was entered into without thorough knowledge of the Goods and Service Taxes Act and related rules. The petitioner also argued that the tax imposed should not exceed 12%, citing specific notifications dated 25.1.2018. The petitioner highlighted that the detained motor cycles were used vehicles, not brand new, which should impact the tax rate. The court emphasized that the 2nd respondent must consider these arguments while finalizing the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment disposed of both Writ Petitions with the aforementioned observations and directions. It emphasized the need for a fair consideration of the petitioner's pleas and a timely adjudication by the 2nd respondent to ensure justice in the matter.