9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1241 - HC - GSTTime Limitation to issue SCN - impugned notice in Form GST Mov-07 has been issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - seeking release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - HELD THAT - The impugned notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner within seven days on the date of detention/seizure of goods/conveyance as is contemplated under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017 has not used the expression within seven days from the date of detention or seizure . The language in Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017 is clear. Notice specifying payment of penalty has to be issued within seven days of detention or seizure of goods. Issuance of notice within seven days has to be calculated from the date on which seizure was to be effected and not from the following date. Thus, the last date for issuance of the impugned notice would have expired on 06.09.2023. However, the impugned notice has been dispatched through e-mail only on the following date i.e., on 07.09.2023 after the expiry of limitation. The impugned notice stands quashed with a direction to the respondent to release the goods/conveyances of the petitioner, if they have not been released so far - Petition allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the challenge of an impugned notice in Form GST Mov-07 dated 05.09.2023, based on the contention that it was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Issue 1: Challenge of Impugned Notice The petitioner challenged the impugned notice in Form GST Mov-07, arguing that it was issued beyond the period of limitation specified under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The goods/conveyance were intercepted on 30.08.2023, and subsequent actions were taken, including the issuance of a notice for physical verification on the same day. However, the petitioner received the notice on 08.09.2023, exceeding the statutory limitation period. The petitioner contended that the notice should lapse due to the limitation prescribed under the Act. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 129(3) of TNGST Act, 2017 The argument revolved around the interpretation of Section 129(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, which mandates the issuance of a notice within seven days of detention or seizure of goods. The Court noted that the notice should have been issued within seven days from the date of detention or seizure, not from the following date. As per the Act, the last date for issuing the impugned notice would have been 06.09.2023. However, the notice was dispatched via email on 07.09.2023, after the expiration of the limitation period. Judgment The Court, after considering the arguments, held that the impugned notice should have been issued within seven days of detention or seizure, as per Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017. Since the notice was dispatched after the prescribed period, it was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice and directed the respondent to release the goods/conveyances of the petitioner, if not already done. The respondent was granted liberty to impose penalties under other provisions of the Act, following due process. As a result, the Writ Petition was allowed with no costs incurred.
|
