9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1226 - HC - GSTLevy of tax and penalty as well as the proceedings under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act - unilateral enhancement of the amount of the invoices - driver produced the invoices - drivers are owners of goods or not - notification dated 31.12.2018 - HELD THAT - The matter requires consideration. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter - List thereafter.
Issues:
Challenge to appellate authority's order upholding tax and penalty imposition under IGST Act and CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioners, comprising various trading entities, challenged the appellate authority's decision dated 30.9.2021, which affirmed the Mobile Squad's order from 14.9.2021 under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, read with Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners contested that as the driver of the vehicle produced invoices during interception, they should be considered owners of the goods as per a notification from 31.12.2018. They argued that Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act should apply for the release of goods, not Section 129(1)(b). Additionally, they claimed that the value of seized goods, as stated in their invoices, was accurate, and any unilateral enhancement by the authority lacked legal basis. The court deemed this contention worthy of consideration. The court granted the learned Standing Counsel three weeks to file a counter affidavit, with a provision for a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. As an interim measure, the court ordered the release of goods belonging to three of the petitioners upon payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act for the invoices presented by the driver during interception. Goods not covered by these invoices would be released upon payment of tax and penalty according to the appellate court's order. Once the specified tax and penalty were paid, the seized vehicle of the fourth petitioner would be released.
|
