9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1239 - HC - GSTSeeking release of detained goods - appealable order or not - Section 129 (1)(b)/129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act - HELD THAT - An order under Section 129 (1)(b)/129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with IGST Act, has been passed on 14.05.2022, pursuant to the impugned notice. The order is appealable under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. The petition is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice in GST Mov-6 & MOV-07 2. Release of detained goods and vehicle 3. Restraining from coercive measures 4. Directing issuance of circular to prevent harassment 5. Expedited decision on petitioner's representation 6. Any other suitable writ or direction 7. Costs of the writ petition Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought relief by challenging the impugned show cause notice in GST Mov-6 & MOV-07 issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The High Court noted that an order under Section 129 (1)(b)/129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 had been passed on 14.05.2022, pursuant to the notice. The court highlighted that the order is appealable under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. Despite not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal against the order dated 14.05.2022. 2. The petitioner also sought a writ directing the release of detained goods and the vehicle in question. However, the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition implies that this specific relief was not granted at this stage, leaving the petitioner the option to appeal the subsequent order issued on 14.05.2022. 3. Another relief sought was to restrain the respondents from resorting to any coercive measures against the petitioner based on the impugned orders. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits indicates that this particular relief was not granted at this stage, emphasizing the availability of the remedy of appeal against the order dated 14.05.2022. 4. The petitioner requested a writ directing the Commissioner to issue a circular to prevent unnecessary harassment during goods transportation. While the court did not delve into the merits of this request, the dismissal of the writ petition suggests that this specific relief was not granted immediately, allowing the petitioner to pursue the appeal route against the subsequent order. 5. Additionally, the petitioner sought an expedited decision on their representation made to the Commissioner. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition implies that this relief was not immediately granted, emphasizing the option for the petitioner to appeal the order issued on 14.05.2022 for further consideration. 6. The petitioner also requested any other suitable writ or direction as deemed fit by the court. The dismissal of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits indicates that this broad request was not granted immediately, leaving room for further legal recourse through the appeal process. 7. Finally, the petitioner sought costs of the writ petition. The court did not specify the decision on costs in the provided summary of the judgment, leaving it unclear whether this specific relief was granted or not.
|
