2022 (10) TMI 555 - HC - GST

Detention order - time limitation for issuance of detention order expired - section 129 of TNGST Act - HELD THAT - Neither of the parties had argued the position of delay in the earlier round of proceedings and the direction to the officer in order dated 06.09.2022 is to consider the reply of the petitioner 'in accordance with law' and thereafter pass an order. The petitioner in its reply filed on the same day has specifically made reference to the order in this case of D.K.Enterprises 2022 (9) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and has also referred to the statutory timeline under Section 129 of the Act. Thus, it was incumbent upon the authority to have taken note of the same. This has not been done. Specifically since the admitted dates clearly reveal the lapses in adhering to the statutory and stipulated timelines, the case of the petitioner merits acceptance - The impugned orders are set aside. The vehicle in question shall be released forthwith - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to detention order and demand of tax and penalty under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order of detention dated 11.08.2022 and a demand of tax and penalty dated 13.09.2022 under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. The petitioner transported a second-hand Tata Hitachi Excavator, intercepted on 01.08.2022 at Ammapet Bye Pass junction, Salem. The driver's statement was recorded on the same day, and physical verification orders were issued simultaneously.

3. The petitioner argued that no permission was sought or received for extending the period for issuing the physical verification order. No detention order was passed within the specified period under Section 129, nor was a show cause notice issued within 7 days as mandated by Section 129(3) of the Act.

4. Referring to a previous case, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines from vehicle interception to the final penalty order. The authority must issue a detention order before the show cause notice, which was not done in this case.

5. Notably, in this case, the detention order was passed on 11.08.2022, after the interception on 01.08.2022, and the show cause notice was issued on 16.08.2022, violating the timelines specified under Section 129, rendering the proceedings invalid.

6. The Government Advocate mentioned a previous petition where the petitioner was allowed to reply to the show cause notice, suggesting that any delay had been condoned. However, the court found no merit in this argument as the delay issue was not raised earlier, and the direction was to consider the reply according to the law.

7. The petitioner's reply highlighted the statutory timeline and the court's previous judgment, expecting the authority to consider these aspects. Since the authority failed to do so, the court found in favor of the petitioner due to the clear lapses in adhering to statutory timelines.

8. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the vehicle was ordered to be released immediately. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.