2023 (10) TMI 942 - HC - GST

Validity of proceedings u/s 129 of CGST Act - mis-declaration in E-way bill - processed White Red Betel was being transported, whereas the E-waybills and E-invoices was shown of Dried Areca Nuts and value of both the seized articles were different. The petitioner submits that once the notice itself may be quashed, goods may not be treated undervalued and the authority is neither the Assessing Authority nor the Adjudicating Authority to impose tax and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law and same may be quashed. HELD THAT - The matter is remitted to respondent no.2 to pass orders afresh under Section 129(1)(a) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act, detention order, notice, and order passed by the respondent.

Proceedings Initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. The petitioner's vehicle was intercepted, and discrepancies were found between the product being transported and the documents provided. The petitioner was subjected to a notice and an order in Form GST MOV-09 was passed. The State-respondents agreed that the notice under Section 129(3) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act may be treated as valid for imposing a penalty. The petitioner argued that the notice should be quashed, and the authority lacked the power to impose tax. The court quashed the impugned order dated 4.10.2023 and remitted the matter to the respondent to pass fresh orders under Section 129(1)(a) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 within a week after affording the petitioner a hearing opportunity.

Detention Order and Notice:
The petitioner also sought to quash the detention order dated 27.9.2023 and the notice dated 03.10.2023. The court did not provide specific details on these issues but included them in the overall relief sought by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 4.10.2023 was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh orders, encompassing these aspects as well.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Allahabad, comprising Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker and Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava J., disposed of the writ petition after considering the submissions of both parties. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of affording the petitioner a due opportunity of hearing.