9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 718 - HC - GSTConfiscation of goods - there was neither any delivery challan nor any invoice accompanying the goods and hence proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act was invoked - HELD THAT - Several factual aspects have been narrated by the officer, while arriving at a conclusion of 'intent to evade tax'. All those aspects are factual matters which require an appreciation of disputed facts. It is the settled position of law that this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution when there are disputed facts, especially in matters of taxation. Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act to prefer an appeal and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, even. This writ petition shall stand dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P17 order under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Ext.P17 order issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, claiming that the respondents acted beyond their jurisdiction. The gold ornaments owned by the petitioner were seized by the respondents on 14.07.2021 due to the absence of accompanying documents like delivery challan or invoice. The petitioner argued that a delivery challan was present in a nearby scooter, which, if recovered, would validate their claims. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader, representing the respondents, contended that the issues raised by the petitioner were matters of dispute requiring a factual evaluation. The assessing officer concluded that there was an intention to evade tax. The Government Pleader maintained that this case did not warrant intervention under Article 226, emphasizing the presence of disputed facts. Upon reviewing the contentions, the judge observed that the impugned order detailed various factual aspects supporting the conclusion of 'intent to evade tax'. As per legal precedent, courts cannot interfere under Article 226 when factual disputes, especially in tax matters, exist. The judge highlighted that the petitioner could utilize the alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act by filing an appeal, ensuring no prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the judge dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue statutory remedies.
|
