9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1355 - HC - GSTLegality of seizure of the petitioner's vehicle - petitioner would contend that the iron and steel scrap was actually loaded in Autonagar at Vijayawada and not at the address of the office of the consignor - HELD THAT - There are clear disputes of fact, in as much as, the petitioner contends that no notices and proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the Act, while the 1st respondent contends that such notices were issued strictly within the ambit set out under Section 129 of the Act. Further, there is also a dispute as to the origin of the goods and whether the goods were loaded at Autonagar or they were said to have been loaded at the address of the consignor. Keeping in view, the time lines under Section 129 of the Act, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the proceedings, under Section 129 of the Act, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two (02) weeks from today. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED: 1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle was lawful under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the authorities complied with the procedural requirements of issuing notices and conducting proceedings under Section 129 of the Act? 3. Whether the goods being transported were in contravention of the Act or Rules? 4. Whether there was evidence of circular trading and tax evasion in the movement of goods? 5. Whether the consignor's address was capable of storing the quantity of goods being transported? 6. Whether the goods were loaded at the correct location as claimed by the petitioner? ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS: Issue 1: Lawfulness of Vehicle Seizure - The petitioner argued that the seizure was unlawful due to non-issuance of notices as required by Section 129 of the Act. - The court noted the requirement for authorities to provide reasons for seizure and issue a show cause notice within 7 days, followed by an order within a further 7 days. - The petitioner claimed compliance with E-way bill requirements, asserting the seizure was unwarranted. - The 1st respondent argued that notices were served, but proceedings were stalled due to non-cooperation. - The court directed the 1st respondent to complete proceedings promptly, recognizing factual disputes. Issue 2: Compliance with Procedural Requirements - The petitioner contended that necessary jurisdictional facts were not established for seizure under Section 129. - The 1st respondent alleged circular trading and tax evasion, citing discrepancies in the movement of goods. - Disputes arose regarding the consignor's address and the actual loading location of the goods. - The court refrained from adjudicating on factual disputes but ordered the 1st respondent to conclude proceedings within two weeks. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS: - The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance under Section 129 of the Act, directing the 1st respondent to expedite proceedings. - Core principles established include the necessity of fulfilling jurisdictional requirements for seizure and addressing factual disputes through appropriate proceedings. - Final determinations include the disposal of the Writ Petition with a directive for the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry expeditiously.
|
