9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 1053 - HC - GSTDetention of goods alongwith the vehicle - detention on the ground that the goods loaded could have been taken via other route which was shorter and instead 450 km long route has been taken via Gujarat - possibility of delivery of the goods in Gujarat or to the nearer place to Gujarat - HELD THAT - Noticing the fact that the petitioner had sought the time before the respondent No.4 for the hearing of the show cause notice twice, only on the ground of the matter pending before the concerned authority for adjudication, it is deemed appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the concerned officer for adjudication of the show cause notice without entering into merits of the matter. The parties are relegated to the respondent authorities for adjudication of SCN within one week - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Detention of vehicle and goods without due procedure of law under Articles 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Exercise of powers under Section 129(1) and Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. Adjudication of detention order and show cause notice by the respondent authorities. Analysis: Issue 1: Detention of vehicle and goods without due procedure of law The petitioner, a sole proprietor of a firm dealing with Safety Matches, raised a grievance against the respondents for detaining the vehicle and goods at Songadh Post without following due procedure of law. The detention was based on the pretext of physical verification and under-valuation under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017. The detention order was issued under Section 129(1) of the Act, alleging the choice of a longer route via Gujarat, which was disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked mention of under-valuation and was followed by a show cause notice under Section 130 of the Act instead of Section 129(3), which was deemed non-est in law. The petitioner sought release of the truck and goods through a writ of mandamus or any other direction. Issue 2: Exercise of powers under Section 129(1) and Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 The petitioner contended that the exercise of powers under Section 129(1) and the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 130 without proper application of mind and foundation were against the guidelines set by the Court in previous cases. The petitioner argued that the transporter's choice of route should not be a ground for suspicion or detention. The respondent authorities defended the actions, stating that there was no detention of the truck driver and that the show cause notice required adjudication without intervention at the stage of SCN. The Court directed the parties to be sent to the concerned authorities for adjudication of the show cause notice within a specified timeline. Issue 3: Adjudication of detention order and show cause notice by the respondent authorities The Court, after considering the submissions, directed the parties to the respondent authorities for adjudication of the show cause notice within a week. The petitioner's averments in the petition were to be construed as the reply to the show cause notice. Any additional submissions by the petitioner were to be filed electronically. The respondent authority was instructed to adjudicate the matter by a specified date, taking into account the reply and other materials, and considering the decided case law on the subject. The Court disposed of all three petitions accordingly, emphasizing that the merits of the matter had not been considered, and the adjudication was to be done in accordance with the law. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of detention without due procedure, the exercise of powers under the CGST Act, and the adjudication process directed by the Court for resolving the grievances raised by the petitioner.
|
