9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 409 - HC - GSTRelease of seized goods alongwith the truck - section 129 and 130 of CGST Act - 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 - HELD THAT - The writ applicant availed the benefit of the interimorder 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 Section130 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 2020 (2) TMI 1159 - 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 confiscation notice. 2. Requirement and validity of the e-way bill. 3. Applicability of Section 130 of the GGST Act, 2017. 4. Penalty under Section 122 of the GGST Act, 2017. 5. Interim relief for release of the vehicle and goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Confiscation Notice: The petitioner sought to quash the confiscation notice dated 21.8.2019 in FORM-GST-MOV-10. The court noted the circumstances under which the notice was issued, primarily focusing on the transportation of a Winch Machine for repairs without an e-way bill. The petitioner argued that the goods were not liable to tax as they were being transported for job work and not for sale. The court referenced a prior order and the provisions of the GGST Act to evaluate the legality of the notice. 2. Requirement and Validity of the E-way Bill: The petitioner contended that the e-way bill was generated immediately after the vehicle was intercepted, indicating compliance. The court examined Section 2(108) of the GGST Act, 2017, which defines taxable supply, and noted that the goods were being transported for job work, not for taxable supply. The court considered the timing of the e-way bill generation and the nature of the transportation to determine the necessity and validity of the e-way bill in this context. 3. Applicability of Section 130 of the GGST Act, 2017: The court scrutinized the application of Section 130, which deals with confiscation for contravention of the Act. The court emphasized that not all contraventions justify invoking Section 130 and referenced a previous judgment (Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat) to highlight the need for a strong case to invoke confiscation at the initial stage. The court stressed that the authorities must closely examine the nature of the contravention and the intent to evade tax before issuing a confiscation notice. 4. Penalty under Section 122 of the GGST Act, 2017: The petitioner argued that under Section 122, the maximum penalty for transporting goods without proper documents is ?10,000, as no tax was evaded. The court acknowledged this argument and noted that the petitioner might only be liable for a penalty of ?10,000, considering the circumstances and the nature of the transportation. 5. Interim Relief for Release of the Vehicle and Goods: The court had previously issued an interim order directing the release of the vehicle and goods upon payment of the tax amount. The petitioner availed this benefit, and the vehicle and goods were released. The court noted that the proceedings were at the show cause notice stage under Section 130 and would proceed in accordance with the law. The court allowed the petitioner to rely on recent judgments to support their case against the show cause notice. Conclusion: The court disposed of the writ application, making the rule absolute to the extent that the petitioner could challenge the show cause notice. The court emphasized the need for authorities to apply their mind and justify the invocation of Section 130, ensuring that not all contraventions lead to confiscation without substantial grounds. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to argue that the show cause notice should be discharged based on the principles outlined in the referenced judgments.
|
