9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 955 - HC - GSTSeeking release of confiscated conveyance alongwith the goods - e-way bill was wrongly generated by someone in the name of proprietor - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Appellate Authority has passed the impugned order without considering the submissions made by the petitioner and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside by remanding the matter back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh de novo order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth has shown willingness to deposit the amount of tax and penalty and to furnish a bond for fine in lieu of confiscation of goods before the authority for release of goods and conveyance - Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,300/- towards tax and a sum of Rs. 6,00,600/- for penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance, totalling Rs. 9,00,900/- before the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order on furnishing a bond of Rs. 60,06,000/- within a period of two weeks from receipt of this order. The respondent authority is therefore, directed to release the goods and conveyance. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Petition to quash order under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and release detained goods and conveyance. Analysis: 1. Detention and Confiscation: The petitioner, engaged in trading arecanuts, transported goods to Jamnagar based on an order. The recipient filed a complaint about the e-way bill, leading to detention of goods and conveyance. The respondent issued a confiscation notice based on the complaint. 2. Legal Proceedings: The petitioner informed the recipient about the situation, leading to an email acknowledging the mistake. Despite this, the authorities proceeded with the confiscation. The petitioner challenged this through a Special Civil Application, which led to a stay on the final confiscation order. 3. Appellate Proceedings: The petitioner appealed under section 107 of the GST Act. The Appellate Authority issued queries beyond the initial confiscation notice, which the petitioner responded to. However, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the confiscation. 4. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the complaint was withdrawn due to a commercial dispute, and 25% of the tax demanded was deposited. The impugned order was criticized for being mechanical and lacking consideration of facts and principles of natural justice. 5. Respondent's Position: The respondent argued that the orders were passed considering facts and legal provisions. Reference was made to relevant sections of the GST Act and a previous court judgment. 6. Judicial Review: The High Court found that the Appellate Authority did not consider crucial aspects like pre-deposit and failed to provide an opportunity for a hearing. The court observed that the order lacked proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions. 7. Court's Decision: The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed a fresh hearing by the Appellate Authority within 12 weeks. The petitioner was directed to deposit specific amounts for tax, penalty, and fine for the release of goods and conveyance. 8. Final Directions: The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case and instructed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal independently. The rule was made absolute without any costs incurred by either party.
|
