9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1015 - HC - GSTSeizure of the goods and conveyance imposing tax and penalty - Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act - HELD THAT - Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition stating that Section 129 of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause, which has not been considered in the aforesaid judgements that have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The matter requires consideration - List this matter on 22.12.2021 alongwith record of Writ-Tax Nos. 1019 of 2021, 1020 of 2021 and 1021 of 2021.
Issues: Challenge to order under Section 129(3) of CGST Act for seizure of goods and conveyance, jurisdiction of proper authority, interpretation of non-obstante clause in Section 129, reference to judgments of Kerala High Court, High Court of Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh High Court.
In this case, the petitioner challenged an order issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act for the seizure of goods and conveyance, imposing tax and penalty, based on the allegation of under-invoicing. The petitioner contended that the proper authority lacked jurisdiction to seize the goods solely on the grounds of under-invoicing. The counsel for the petitioner cited judgments from the Kerala High Court, High Court of Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh High Court to support the argument that the authority's actions were not justified. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, argued that Section 129 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause, which was not considered in the judgments referenced by the petitioner. The court noted the contentions raised and decided that the matter required further consideration. The petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Alfa Group Manackal Building Vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer, an interim order of the High Court of Gujarat in Sakul Nazar Mohmd. Vs. State of Gujarat, and a decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in K.P. Sugandh Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. These judgments were cited to argue that the authority's actions were not in line with the provisions of the Act. However, the Standing Counsel opposed the petition, emphasizing that Section 129 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause, which was not considered in the judgments cited by the petitioner. The court granted two weeks to the respondents to file a counter affidavit and allowed a week for the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The case was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date along with the relevant records.
|
