9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1449 - HC - GSTInitiation of proceedings under Section 129 of the TSGST Act - detention of vehicle with goods - movement of taxable goods without E-Way bill - HELD THAT - The proceedings for violation of the provisions of Section 129 of the TSGST Act have been initiated by respondent No.6 during inspection and detention of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-AH-1562 on 09.07.2024 allegedly loaded for delivery of consignment from the warehouse of the petitioner at Bypass Road, Dukli, West Tripura to Udaipur, Gomati Tripura after the E-Way bill had expired on 07.07.2024. This fact does not appear to be in dispute even as per the reply submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-13. The relevant MOV-01, MOV-02 and MOV-07 also indicate that there was a mismatch in the number of the vehicle with the vehicle number mentioned in the E-Way bill which had expired. This Court is not required to interfere in the matter since the proceedings are inchoate. Needless to say, the authorized officer/respondent No.6-Inspector of State Taxes has to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law upon giving opportunity of physical hearing to the petitioner and/or the driver of the conveyance within the stipulated time - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Transporter's failure to extend E-Way bills on time leading to interception of vehicle and initiation of proceedings under Section 129 of TSGST Act. Compliance with circular dated 13.04.2018 regarding uploading of GST MOV notices and passing of adjudication order within seven days. Request for release of detained vehicle and consignment pending adjudication. Analysis: The petitioner, claiming to be a transporter under a franchisee agreement, failed to extend E-Way bills due to an electric supply disruption, resulting in the interception of the vehicle by the tax authorities. The authorities initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the TSGST Act, citing the movement of taxable goods without a valid E-Way bill. The petitioner sought relief from the court to set aside the proceedings and release the detained vehicle and consignment. The petitioner argued that the tax authorities failed to comply with the circular dated 13.04.2018 by not uploading relevant GST MOV notices on the portal for the transporter's response. Additionally, the adjudication order on GST MOV-07 was not passed within the stipulated seven days. The authorities rescheduled the hearing, and the petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings suffered from technical violations, urging for the requested reliefs. The respondents contended that the proceedings were under adjudication and requested the court not to interfere. They advised the petitioner to appear on the scheduled date to explain their position and seek release of the consignment pending adjudication by providing necessary security as prescribed under the law. The court observed that the proceedings were ongoing, with the transporter being informed of the next physical hearing date. It was emphasized that the authorized officer must conclude the proceedings within the stipulated time after providing an opportunity for a physical hearing. The court directed that if the transporter fails to cooperate, a decision should be made promptly. Furthermore, if the petitioner furnishes the required security, the authorities should consider releasing the consignment. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the authorities to conclude the proceedings in accordance with the law, provide necessary opportunities for hearing, and consider releasing the consignment upon the fulfillment of security requirements.
|
