9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 339 - HC - GSTRelease of seized truck alongwith the goods - liability of damage / detention charges - HELD THAT - Considering the material on record it appears that this Court, while admitting the matter, found that the impugned order dated 02.01.2019, passed under Section 130 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is without any reason and the same is passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner - In view of such fact, the impugned order, passed under Section 130 of the Act, is hereby quashed and set aside. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenging impugned order under Articles 226 and 227 - Quashing and setting aside impugned order - Releasing detained truck - Seeking compensation for detention - Validity of confiscation order under GST Acts. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking various reliefs, including quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent on 02/01/2019 and immediate release of the detained Truck No. GJ 01 BY 5326 without any payment or security. The petitioner also sought compensation for the detention of the truck without fault. A co-ordinate Bench of the Court heard arguments and noted that out of 31 bills and lorry receipts carried by the apprehended conveyance, goods were released for most bills except for two lorry receipts issued to a specific corporation. It was found that the GSTN used for these receipts was obtained under false pretenses. The Court observed that the authorities had not taken action against the real culprit but penalized the transporter unfairly. The confiscation order under GST Acts was deemed faulty as the concerned authority did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner and did not apply its mind properly. The Court granted interim relief, directing the immediate release of the petitioner's conveyance subject to an undertaking. After the goods and conveyance were released upon filing the undertaking, the matter was heard again. The Court found the impugned order passed under Section 130 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to be without reason and not considering the petitioner's objections. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, with a clarification that the respondent authority could invoke Section 130 if new material was found against the petitioner. The petition was disposed of with this direction, making the rule absolute to that extent.
|
