9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 925 - HC - GSTMaintainability of application - writ applicant has preferred an Appeal under Section 107 of the Act challenging the order of the confiscation - HELD THAT - As the appeal has already been filed and is pending before the appellate authority, there is no good or valid reason for us to entertain this writ application. Ms. Parikh, would submit that this writ application has been filed redressing the grievance with regard to the arbitrary action taken by the respondents. We may only say that while deciding the Appeal, the Appellate Authority can always go into the question as regards the legality and validity of the action taken by the authorities. We dispose of this writ application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directing the Appellate Authority to immediately take up the appeal for hearing and decide the same in accordance with law.
Issues:
1. Challenge to Order of Detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act 2. Challenge to Show Cause Notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act 3. Challenge to Order of Confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act 4. Request for stay on implementation of the above orders 5. Request for release of Goods without payment of tax and penalty 6. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution of India Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the Order of Detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, the Show Cause Notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act, and the Order of Confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also sought a stay on the implementation of these orders and requested the release of goods worth ?34,14,600 without payment of tax and penalty. 2. The court heard the arguments presented by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the counsel for the petitioner. It was noted that the final order of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act had been passed by the respondent. The court was informed that an appeal challenging the order of confiscation had been filed under Section 107 of the Act. The court held that since the appeal was pending before the appellate authority, there was no valid reason to entertain the writ application. 3. Ms. Parikh contended that the writ application was filed to address the arbitrary actions of the respondents. The court emphasized that the appellate authority could review the legality and validity of the actions taken by the authorities while deciding the appeal. The court disposed of the writ application without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, directing the appellate authority to promptly hear and decide the appeal in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also allowed to file an application under Section 67(6) of the Act for the provisional release of the goods, with a directive for expedited hearing and decision due to the perishable nature of the goods. 4. The court considered the nature of the goods, being 'cummin seeds,' and instructed the appellate authority to ensure that the appeal was decided by a specified date, providing the petitioner with a fair hearing opportunity. The court aimed for the appeal to be concluded by 31.01.2021, taking into account the urgency due to the perishable nature of the goods. The writ application was ultimately disposed of by the court. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented, the court's considerations, and the directives provided to the parties involved.
|
