9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 607 - HC - GSTRelease of detained goods along with vehicle - Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017 - evasion of tax or not - HELD THAT - The counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 31 of CGST Act, 2017 and pointed out that as per the statute, an invoice could be issued either at the time of removal of goods or prior to the delivery of the goods and that the same is in consonance with the statute and hence, there is no cause for doubting any evasion of tax - Even though aforenoted contention is impressive, still, in view of the fact that an adjudication is already pending, it is only proper that a conclusion is not entered into at this juncture. For the present, a direction to complete the adjudication proceedings at the earliest would be sufficient in the instant case. The respondent is directed to complete the adjudication proceedings in relation to Ext.P2 notice, within an outer time period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - petition disposed off.
Issues: Challenge to notice under Section 129 of State Goods and Services Act, 2017 for delay in transportation of goods leading to suspicion of tax evasion.
In this case, the petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and sale of bicycles, challenged a notice issued under Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017. The notice was based on a time delay between the issuance of invoices and the transportation of consigned bicycles, leading to suspicion of collusion for tax evasion. The petitioner had already deposited the directed amount to release the detained vehicle and consignments. The respondent, in a counter affidavit, stated that the detention was due to the supplier issuing invoices significantly before the removal of goods, which allegedly violated the CGST Act. The petitioner, in response, denied any delay in the removal of goods and asserted that the inter-state sale of bicycles was conducted correctly. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel referred to Section 31 of the CGST Act, 2017, highlighting that invoices could be issued either at the time of goods removal or before delivery, in compliance with the statute. Despite this argument, the judge emphasized that since an adjudication was already pending, it was premature to draw a conclusion at that stage. Instead, the judge directed the respondent to conclude the adjudication proceedings related to the notice within two months from the date of the judgment, emphasizing the importance of expeditious resolution. Ultimately, the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017 was disposed of with the direction to complete the adjudication proceedings promptly.
|
