9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 734 - HC - GSTSeeking release of retained goods - contention of the second respondent that he has not received Ext P4 request is untenable because as per the postal delivery form submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it shows that Ext P4 order was delivered to the second respondent on 06.02.2023 - HELD THAT - Section 112 of the CGST Act provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 107 or Section 108 of the Act has a remedy to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It may be true that the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted till date. But, the fact remains that Ext P3 order was passed on 10.01.2023 and the respondents have not worked out their alternative remedies till date. Taking note of the fact that Ext P3 order was passed as early as on 10.01.2023, and the respondents have not taken any steps to challenge Ext P3 order, there are no justifiable or cogent reason for the respondents to refuse to accept Ext P3 order. The request of the petitioner is reasonable and just. The first respondent is directed to release the goods covered by Ext P1 demand, by passing a release order in Form GST MOV-05, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after permitting the petitioner to remit the modified demand as per Ext P3 appellate order - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the release of detained goods under a demand notice, compliance with appellate orders, and the refusal of authorities to release goods despite a modified demand being accepted. Release of detained goods: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Acts, had gold ornaments confiscated by the proper officer under Ext P1 demand notice. The petitioner challenged Ext P1 before the Court, which directed the petitioner to appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority partially allowed the appeal in Ext P3 order, directing the release of goods on payment of tax, penalty, and a modified fine. Despite the petitioner's willingness to comply with Ext P3 order, the first respondent refused to release the goods without permission from the second respondent. Compliance with appellate orders: The petitioner sought the release of goods by complying with the modified demand in Ext P3 order. The petitioner cited previous judgments where the Court directed the release of goods upon finality of appellate orders. The Government Pleader opposed, arguing that the second respondent had not received the petitioner's notice and that the Tribunal had not been constituted for a second appeal. However, the Court found no justifiable reason for the respondents to refuse to accept Ext P3 order and directed the release of goods within two weeks of the judgment. Refusal to release goods: The first respondent refused to release the gold ornaments despite the petitioner's compliance with Ext P3 order. The Court noted that Ext P3 order was passed early in 2023, and the respondents had not taken steps to challenge it. Citing a previous order directing the release of goods in a similar case, the Court found the petitioner's request reasonable and ordered the release of goods by the first respondent within two weeks of the judgment. Separate Judgement: The judgment was delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice C.S.Dias.
|
