9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 177 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - imposition of tax and penalty - clerical error or not - Detention of goods alongwith conveyance - whether the result of imposing of tax and penalty is a mere wrong reading of the table or wrong calculation that could have been avoided by the respondent No.2? HELD THAT - The appellate authority is stated to be Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the matter similar to the present one. Thus, when the appeal is provided and the authority is notified as stated above whether the Joint Commissioner or other authority the matter has to be agitated before the same and the writ remedy cannot be invoked by making High Court as middle authority or cannot be placed in between the prescribed authority (respondent No.2) and appellate authority as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In the circumstances equally efficacious remedy is prescribed by law for the petitioner. Further the matter does not stand in the footing of error or oversight or a slip. As such, the matter ought to have been agitated before the appellate authority as per law - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention of goods and conveyance under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. 2. Imposition of integrated tax and penalty under Sections 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. 3. Whether the discrepancy in the declared quantity of goods was a clerical error. 4. Appropriateness of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Detention of Goods and Conveyance under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act: The petitioner moved goods from its SEZ unit in Tamil Nadu to a bonded warehouse in Gujarat. The goods were detained by the respondent under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act due to a discrepancy in the declared quantity. The physical verification showed 41 Metric Tonnes, whereas the declaration was for 31 Metric Tonnes. The petitioner claimed the discrepancy was due to a clerical error. 2. Imposition of Integrated Tax and Penalty under Sections 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act: The respondent issued a notice demanding integrated tax of ?2,88,669/- and imposed a penalty equal to 100% of the tax amount under Section 129(1)(a) and a penalty of ?13,51,051/- under Section 129(1)(b). The petitioner argued that the movement of goods was a bond-to-bond transfer and not liable for GST, and that the penalty was not sustainable due to the clerical error. 3. Whether the Discrepancy in the Declared Quantity of Goods was a Clerical Error: The petitioner explained the error in a letter dated 22.05.2020, stating it was a clerical mistake of interchanging the weights of two vehicles. The respondent did not accept this explanation and confirmed the demand. The court noted that errors might be due to honest oversight, but when brought to the authority's notice and not accepted, it cannot be considered a clerical slip. 4. Appropriateness of Invoking Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The respondent argued that the petitioner should file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the appellate authority. The court agreed, stating that an equally efficacious remedy was available by law, and the matter should be agitated before the appellate authority. The court found no necessity to examine the case under writ jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should have pursued the prescribed appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court concluded that the matter did not stand on the footing of a clerical error or oversight, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not appropriate in this case.
|
