2020 (12) TMI 897 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - E-Way bill had expired - case of the petitioner is that though the authorities were well aware about the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the goods, no notice to the petitioner was issued - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the petitioner did not have full opportunity to represent the case before the assessing officer, let the petitioner be given such opportunity. For such purpose, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, impugned order dated 09.12.2020 is set aside. The petitioner shall not insist on a separate notice being issued and appear before the said authority and file the objections within a period of two weeks from today. The assessing officer shall pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the representation that may be made. No useful purpose would be served in detaining the vehicle and the goods till the fresh order is passed. The respondents shall release the vehicle and the goods upon the petitioner giving Bank guarantee of 25% of the said sum of ₹ 12,48,530/- and furnishing further Bank guarantee/immovable security for the remaining sum to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. As soon as the petitioner fulfills these conditions the vehicle and the goods shall be released - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging tax and penalty imposition due to expired E-Way bill; Lack of notice to the petitioner; Opportunity for petitioner to represent the case before the assessing officer; Requirement of bank guarantee for release of goods and vehicle.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested an order by State GST authorities imposing tax and penalty amounting to ?12,48,530 for an expired E-Way bill during the transportation of LPG cylinders. The petitioner argued that despite being the goods' owner, no notice was directly served, and their communications were disregarded. The petitioner, engaged in LPG cylinder manufacturing, claimed the breach was technical. Respondents contended that notice was given to the vehicle's driver, who failed to inform the petitioner, leading to the tax imposition. The court acknowledged the lack of a full opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and set aside the order, granting the petitioner a chance to represent within two weeks. The assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's submissions. The court emphasized releasing the goods and vehicle promptly, subject to the petitioner meeting specified conditions.

The court refrained from delving into the conflicting accounts, focusing on granting the petitioner a fair hearing opportunity. To facilitate the goods and vehicle's release, the court mandated the petitioner to provide a bank guarantee equivalent to 25% of the tax and penalty amount, with additional security for the remaining sum, satisfying the assessing officer. Once these conditions are met, the authorities are obligated to release the goods and vehicle promptly. The judgment aimed to balance the petitioner's right to be heard with the need for compliance and security, ensuring a just resolution to the dispute.