9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 525 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty and confiscation of goods - section 129(1) of the GST Act - writ applicant availed the benefit of the interim-order passed by this Court and got the vehicle, along with the goods released on payment of the tax amount - HELD THAT - It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SSYNERGY FERTICHEM PVT. LTD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in Form GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
Issues:
1. Relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. 3. Validity of the impugned Notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated 15.5.2019. 4. Release of goods and vehicle upon payment of tax and penalty. 5. Examination of contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules. 6. Justifiability of invoking Section 130 of the Act at the threshold. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting the release of Truck No. MH-48-AG-0126 and the quashing of the impugned Notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated 15.5.2019. The Court noted a previous order directing the immediate release of goods upon payment of tax and penalty. The petitioner availed this benefit and had the vehicle and goods released. 2. The Court examined Sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 in detail. It emphasized the importance of closely examining the contravention of provisions of the Act or Rules and determining if there was an intent to evade tax. The judgment highlighted the need for authorities to apply their minds and have justifiable grounds before invoking Section 130 at the threshold of detention and seizure. 3. The validity of the impugned Notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated 15.5.2019 was questioned. The Court discussed the necessity for authorities to provide detailed reasons for invoking Section 130 and emphasized that confiscation should be based on strong grounds, not mere suspicion. 4. The release of goods and the vehicle upon payment of tax and penalty was a key aspect of the judgment. The Court directed the immediate release of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner after the goods were released. The proceedings were at the show cause notice stage under Section 130 of the Act. 5. The examination of contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules was crucial. The judgment emphasized that not all contraventions automatically warrant confiscation under Section 130. The authorities were advised to assess each case carefully and not issue confiscation notices without proper justification. 6. The judgment focused on the justifiability of invoking Section 130 of the Act at the threshold. It clarified that authorities must have a strong case supported by detailed reasons before initiating confiscation proceedings. The judgment highlighted the penal nature of confiscation and the need for a genuine intent to evade tax for invoking Section 130. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ application, making the rule absolute to the extent mentioned in the judgment. The petitioner was given the opportunity to challenge the show cause notice issued in Form GST-MOV-10.
|
