2021 (5) TMI 88 - HC - GST

Refund of amount collected as penalty - impugned order does not stipulate even basic details such as the date and time of hearing - no reasons set out for the conclusion arrived at by the authority - HELD THAT - Though the show cause notice and the impugned order are entirely non-speaking and contain blanks, which vitiate them in full, the statement of the driver recorded in Form-GST MOV-01 contains the observation that ' the goods moved from Chennai to Ambur, which is unregistered place of buyer as per invoices the destination place is mentioned as Ambur but as per E-Way bill delivery address mentioned as Bhosari, Maharashtra. ' - The detention order under Section 129(3) of the Act also contains the reasons for detention of the goods as aforesaid. Liberty is granted to the respondent to issue notice afresh, hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order in regard to the levy of penalty, de novo . Let this exercise be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from today - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of State Tax Officer for penalty refund due to errors in notices and non-speaking orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the order of the State Tax Officer seeking a refund of penalty amounting to ?1,82,860 due to errors in the notices and non-speaking orders. The petitioner argued that both the order and the notices leading to it were flawed, lacking essential details like the date and time of hearing. The show cause notice was particularly deficient, with blank fields and a lack of reasoning in the 'speaking order' section, indicating a clear absence of proper consideration by the authority.

Despite the deficiencies in the notices and the impugned order, the statement of the driver recorded in Form-GST MOV-01 highlighted a discrepancy in the goods' destination. The goods were supposed to move from Chennai to Ambur, but the E-Way bill delivery address mentioned Bhosari, Maharashtra, creating a prima facie inconsistency. Additionally, the delivery challan and the detention order under Section 129(3) of the Act provided further evidence regarding the consignment's destination.

Considering the apparent discrepancy in the documentation, the court decided to grant liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice, conduct a new hearing with the petitioner, and deliver a speaking order regarding the penalty levy. This process was mandated to be completed within six weeks from the date of the judgment. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and no costs were imposed on either party. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as part of the judgment.