9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 554 - Commissioner - GSTDetention of goods alongwith vehicle - E-way Bill was found to be defective - the driver of the said vehicle revealed that it was his second trip against the same E-way Bill and Invoice - crux of allegation is that the respondent failed to deposit the amount of tax and penalties as proposed in FORM GST MOV-07 within the stipulated time of seven days as prescribed under Section 129(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 - sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Section 129(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 stipulates that where the amount of tax and penalties proposed and determined by the adjudicating authority should be automatically deposited within seven days, failing which proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130. Section 130 provides for confiscation of goods or conveyance and penalty under Section 122 and also provide option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation - In the present case, the respondent failed to deposit the duty and penalty within seven days accordingly, the adjudicating authority was required to take the action under Section 130 of the Act. The adjudicating authority has erred in passing the impugned order by not confiscating the goods and conveyance or not imposing fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 130 of the Act - Appeal of Revenue allowed.
Issues involved:
Appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding confiscation of goods and conveyance for failure to pay tax and penalties within stipulated time. Detailed Analysis: 1. Brief Facts of the Case: The case involved interception of a vehicle by CGST officers due to a defective E-way Bill and discrepancies related to the transportation of goods. Subsequently, the goods and conveyance were detained under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. Notices were served, but the owner failed to deposit the proposed tax and penalties within the prescribed time, leading to potential confiscation of goods. The appellant deposited the amount later, but the adjudicating authority ordered seizure of goods and conveyance. 2. Review of the Impugned Order: The Commissioner found the impugned order not legal and proper for not confiscating the goods and conveyance or imposing fines. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to file an appeal for review. The appellant department filed an appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned order and also sought condonation of delay for filing the appeal. 3. Failure to Respond and Hearing Process: The respondent failed to file a memorandum of cross-objection despite multiple opportunities for a personal hearing. The matter proceeded based on the available records, with the delay in filing the appeal being condoned. 4. Legal Issue and Decision: The main issue revolved around the failure of the respondent to deposit the tax and penalties within the stipulated time, leading to potential confiscation under Section 130 of the Act. The Commissioner observed that as per Section 129(6), failure to deposit within seven days requires initiation of proceedings under Section 130 for confiscation or imposing fines. The adjudicating authority erred in not confiscating the goods or imposing fines, leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the department. 5. Disposition of the Appeal: The appeal was disposed of by allowing the department's appeal to the extent of confiscation of goods and conveyance or imposing fines in accordance with the legal provisions under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. This detailed analysis highlights the legal proceedings, the failure to comply with deposit requirements, the review of the impugned order, and the final decision regarding confiscation of goods and conveyance under the relevant sections of the CGST Act, 2017.
|
