9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 263 - HC - GSTRelease of detained vehicle - client has already preferred reply to proceedings - notice issued under Section 122(1)(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, without considering the reply - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The stage of interference by this Court in any of the matters, which are in controversy, has not yet commenced because, as rightly stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Ext.P6 is only a notice under Section 122(1)(2) of the Act. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner must submit themselves to the enquiry being conducted by the competent Authority, for which purpose, they have been asked to appear at 11 a.m. on 12.08.2021. The petitioner is directed to comply with Ext.P6; with a further direction to the respondents to ensure that before any further action under Section 129 of the Act is initiated against the petitioner, they will be properly notified and their explanation made in Ext.P5 specifically adverted to particularly that, in the case of a vehicle without any consignment on it, said provision will not apply - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Challenge to Exts.P3 and P3(a) issued by the 1st respondent and direction for release of detained vehicle under it; Interpretation of Sections 122(1)(2) and 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Proper notification and explanation requirement before initiating action under Section 129. Analysis: The petitioner challenged Exts.P3 and P3(a) issued by the 1st respondent and sought the release of the detained vehicle. The petitioner's counsel argued that the proceedings initiated against the client through Ext.P6, under Section 122(1)(2) of the Act, were not legally sound. He contended that as per Ext.P6, only a physical verification report and an order for detention had been issued, which did not justify the actions taken against his client. Additionally, he emphasized that action under Section 129 of the Act could only be taken against goods and conveyance in transit, and since the vehicle in question was empty, any such action would be unlawful. The Senior Government Pleader, representing the respondents, clarified that the proceedings initiated through Ext.P6 were under Section 122(1)(2) of the Act, while the petitioner's concerns were related to Section 129. She argued that the petitioner should comply with Ext.P6, which required appearance before the competent Authority, and any further action under Section 129 would be initiated only after proper notification to the petitioner following the completion of proceedings under Ext.P6. In response, the petitioner's counsel expressed concern about potential action under Section 129, highlighting that the vehicle had no consignment loaded onto it, as explained in Ext.P5. The petitioner was willing to appear before the competent Authority as per Ext.P6 but requested that any action under Section 129 be preceded by the issuance of proceedings based on Ext.P6. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner must cooperate with the enquiry under Ext.P6, which was a notice under Section 122(1)(2) of the Act. The Court directed the petitioner to comply with Ext.P6 but instructed the respondents to ensure proper notification and consideration of the petitioner's explanation before initiating any action under Section 129. The Court emphasized that Section 129 would not apply in the case of a vehicle without any consignment. Consequently, the writ petition was ordered accordingly.
|
