2025 (1) TMI 582 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned order of demand of tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 dated 21.04.2022 - denial of procedural fairness due to the lack of prior notice - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - A reading of the aforesaid Physical Verification Report clearly indicates that there are no reasons justifying either seizure of the subject vehicle or detaining of the goods warrants interference under Section 129(1) r/w. sub-section 3 of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. As such, the impugned order passed by the respondent is without any merits and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the respondent is quashed. The penalty amount paid by the petitioner for releasing the goods shall be allowed to be adjusted towards the tax liability of the petitioner in the regular returns. Petition disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:

Whether the impugned order demanding tax and penalty from the petitioner was validly issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Whether the petitioner was denied procedural fairness due to the lack of prior notice and opportunity for a hearing before the issuance of the impugned order.
Whether the detention of goods and the subsequent penalty were justified based on the facts and evidence presented.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Impugned Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case revolves around the application of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the impugned order lacked merit as there was no justification for the seizure or detention of the goods under the cited provisions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Physical Verification Report (FORM GST MOV-04) did not provide sufficient reasons to justify the detention or seizure of the goods.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied Section 129(1) and sub-section 3 of Section 129 to determine that the impugned order was not supported by adequate grounds.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the penalty was justified based on the driver's statement, but the court found this insufficient to uphold the order.
Conclusions: The impugned order was quashed due to the lack of substantive justification for the penalty and detention.

Issue 2: Procedural Fairness

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice, which require notice and an opportunity to be heard before adverse actions are taken, were central to this issue.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that the petitioner was not given notice or a chance to present their case before the penalty was imposed, violating procedural fairness.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that neither a show cause notice nor the impugned order was served physically or updated on the GST portal before the penalty payment.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied principles of natural justice to conclude that the lack of notice and hearing invalidated the order.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's argument that the penalty payment resolved the issue was dismissed as it did not address the procedural deficiencies.
Conclusions: The order was quashed due to the failure to adhere to principles of natural justice.

Issue 3: Justification for Detention and Penalty

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was again relevant for assessing the justification of detention and penalty.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found no valid reasons for the detention of goods and imposition of the penalty, as the e-way bill and supporting documents were in order.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of any substantive irregularities in the documentation presented during the inspection.
Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the evidence did not support the respondent's actions under the relevant GST provisions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's reliance on the driver's statement was deemed insufficient to justify the penalty.
Conclusions: The court quashed the impugned order due to lack of justification for the detention and penalty.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Crucial Legal Reasoning: "A reading of the aforesaid Physical Verification Report clearly indicates that there are no reasons justifying either seizure of the subject vehicle or detaining of the goods warrants interference under Section 129(1) r/w. sub-section 3 of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness and the requirement of substantive justification for actions taken under GST provisions.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The impugned order was quashed, and the penalty amount was allowed to be adjusted towards the petitioner's tax liability in regular returns.

← Previous Next →