9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1236 - HC - GSTSeeking provisional release of seized goods - detention of goods on the ground that E-way bill was not generated for movement of the consignment - HELD THAT - This Court would now set aside the impugned order. This means that the matter reverts to the detention/seizure order under Section 129(1) of TN-G ST Act. This Court would also now be directing the respondent to redo Section 129(3) legal drill after affording a fresh opportunity to the writ petitioner. In this view of the matter, as Section 129(1) scenario gets revived, learned counsel for writ petitioner on instructions submits that the writ petitioner is ready to furnish Bank Guarantee for the entire amount payable qua Section 129(1)(a) i.e., penalty of 200% of the tax payable. This submission is recorded. Impugned order under Section 129(3) is set aside - the writ petitioner shall furnish Bank Guarantee as per 129(1)(c) read with Section 129(1)(a) i.e., (penalty equivalent to 200% of the tax payable) latest by Monday i.e., by 26.12.2022 - application disposed off.
Issues: Detention and seizure under Section 129 of TN-GST Act due to non-generation of E-way bill. Error in impugned order leading to interference by the Court. Direction to set aside impugned order and redo legal drill under Section 129(3).
In this case, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the TN-GST Act, was transporting goods without generating an E-way bill, leading to detention and seizure of the vehicle under Section 129 of the Act. The impugned order, issued based on the detention, contained a critical error regarding the timing of interception, which was fatal to the order's validity. The Court noted that the E-way bill had indeed been generated before the interception, rendering the detention unjustified. The Court decided to set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to redo the legal process under Section 129(3), providing a fresh opportunity to the petitioner. The Court instructed the petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee for the penalty amount under Section 129(1)(a) by a specified date. Upon providing the Bank Guarantee, as required by the statute, the conveyance and consignment were to be released immediately. The Court also mandated the respondent to conduct a fresh personal hearing and issue a new order within a set timeframe. It was clarified that the petitioner could challenge the new order if aggrieved and that the Court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of this case, not to be considered a precedent for all similar cases under Section 129(3) of the TN-GST Act. The Court emphasized that the order was made due to the error apparent on the face of the record, without delving into the merits of the case beyond that point. The writ petition and related petitions were disposed of as per the directives outlined. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
