9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1186 - HC - GSTRelease of detained goods alongwith vehicle - levy of penalty - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - While issuing notice, this Court directed that the vehicle as well as the goods be released, upon payment of the tax, in terms of the impugned notice - The 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. The proceedings, as on date, are at the stage of show cause notice, under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The proceedings shall go ahead in accordance with law. It shall be open for the writ applicant to point out the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of SYNERGY 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 GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged - Application disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order of detention under Section 129(1) of the GST Act and notice for confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the GST Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to Order of Detention: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the order of detention passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act regarding goods and conveyance. The court noted a previous order highlighting the necessity for the proper procedure to be followed before invoking Section 130 of the Act. The court emphasized that the authority must issue a notice under Section 129, provide an opportunity for a hearing, and only then resort to Section 130 if there is non-compliance. The court observed deficiencies in the impugned notice, indicating a lack of compliance with procedural requirements. 2. Nature of Contravention and Intent to Evade Tax: The judgment referenced a previous case to emphasize the importance of closely examining the nature of contravention and the intent to evade tax before invoking Section 130 at the detention stage. The court stressed that authorities should not automatically issue confiscation notices under Section 130 without proper grounds or reasons to believe there was an intent to evade tax. The judgment highlighted the need for a strong case and material evidence before invoking Section 130 at the outset, cautioning against arbitrary actions based on suspicion. 3. Confiscation Proceedings: The petitioner availed interim relief to release the goods and conveyance upon payment of tax. The court acknowledged the release but directed the proceedings under Section 130 to continue in accordance with the law. The applicant was advised to present arguments based on a recent judgment for the discharge of the show cause notice issued in GST-MOV-10. The court emphasized the need for the applicant to justify the discharge of the notice, indicating that the burden lies on the applicant to demonstrate the notice's invalidity. 4. Conclusion: The writ application was disposed of with the rule made absolute to the extent specified. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process, examining contraventions closely, and ensuring a strong case before invoking confiscation provisions under the GST Act. The applicant was directed to substantiate the discharge of the show cause notice, emphasizing the need for a valid justification to challenge the notice issued under Section 130.
|
