9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 893 - HC - GSTDemand of tax and penalty - Truck carrying Pan Masala - discrepancy in the valuation of goods leading to revenue loss - petitioner submits that if at all if the respondent department intends for confiscation proceeding or to initiate appropriate proceedings that would be under Sections 129 and 130 of the Rules 2017 which may be against the owner of the goods and not against the petitioner/driver - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that the petitioner as such as of now would not have any grievance so far as demand notice dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P/4) is concerned in view of the fact that the owner has subsequently entered appearance in the same proceeding and is contesting the case on merits. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to demand notice dated 17.01.2020 - order of demand of tax and penalty issued by respondent No.5. Analysis: The Writ Petition challenged the demand notice dated 17.01.2020, which was an order of demand of tax and penalty issued by respondent No.5. The facts leading to the petition involved the interception of a truck carrying Pan Masala, where discrepancies in goods valuation were found, leading to revenue loss. A notice was issued to the driver, who was only responsible for the truck, not the goods' ownership. The petitioner, being the truck driver, argued that he had no involvement in the tax and penalty demand. The petitioner had the necessary documents as per Rule 138A of The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and thus, was not in violation of the law. The counsel emphasized that any confiscation proceedings should be against the owner of the goods, not the driver. The Union of India and State, represented by their counsels, clarified that the demand notice was a procedural requirement under the rules and that any proceedings would be against the owner of the goods, not the driver. The owner had appeared before the authority and was contesting the case, indicating that any orders would be passed against the owner, not the driver. Considering the submissions from all parties, the court held that since the owner of the goods had entered appearance and was contesting the case, the petitioner had no grievance regarding the demand notice. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
|
