9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 584 - 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 Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order under Section 129(1) of the GST Act. 2. Validity of the notice for confiscation and penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the GST Act. 4. Interim relief for the release of goods and conveyance. 5. Applicability of precedents and judicial observations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Detention Order under Section 129(1) of the GST Act: The writ applicant challenged the detention order of goods and conveyance under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, arguing that it was "absolutely illegal, unlawful, contrary to the facts and evidence on record, violative of principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder." The court noted that the initial action by the authorities did not comply with the procedural requirements as specified in Section 129(3), which mandates issuing a notice and affording an opportunity of hearing before passing an order. 2. Validity of the Notice for Confiscation and Penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act: The writ applicant contended that the notice issued under Section 130 for confiscation and penalty was premature and not permissible in law. The court observed that the authorities directly resorted to Section 130 without initiating proceedings under Section 129, which is not justified. The court emphasized that Section 130 should only be invoked if there is no compliance with the order passed under Section 129, and not at the inception of detention and seizure. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the GST Act: The court scrutinized the impugned notice and found several procedural lapses, including unfilled blanks in critical sections, indicating non-compliance with statutory provisions. The court reiterated the necessity for authorities to follow due process and ensure that notices are complete and procedurally sound before taking further action. 4. Interim Relief for the Release of Goods and Conveyance: The court had previously granted interim relief directing the release of the vehicle and goods upon payment of the tax amount as per the impugned notice. The writ applicant availed this benefit and got the vehicle and goods released. The court's interim order facilitated the temporary resolution of the immediate issue concerning the detention of goods and conveyance. 5. Applicability of Precedents and Judicial Observations: The court referred to its recent judgment in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, highlighting key observations relevant to the present case. The court underscored that the authorities must closely examine the nature of contravention and intent to evade tax before invoking Section 130. It was noted that issuing a notice under Section 130 at the very threshold, without proper grounds or application of mind, renders Section 129 practically otiose. The court emphasized that any action under Section 130 must be based on strong evidence and reasons recorded in writing, subject to scrutiny by a superior authority. Conclusion: The court concluded that the writ applicant must substantiate their case that the show cause notice issued in GST-MOV-10 deserves to be discharged. The writ application was disposed of, and the rule was made absolute to the extent of the observations and directions provided. The court's judgment reinforced the importance of procedural compliance and the necessity for authorities to exercise due diligence and application of mind in GST-related actions.
|
