9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 206 - HC - GSTDetention Order - seizure of goods alongwith the conveyance - section 129 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act are still pending before the second respondent this court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if the second respondent is directed to forthwith release the goods as well as the conveyance upon the petitioner paying the tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 39, 672/- under protest which shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same in case the same is adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit with the second respondent an amount of Rs. 39, 672/- as computed by the said respondent in the impugned notice dated 15.9.2019 issued under section 130 of the CGST Act. Upon the petitioner depositing such amount the 2nd respondent shall forthwith release the conveyance together with the goods of the petitioner. Petition allowed in part.
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under section 129(1) of the CGST Act and show-cause notice under section 130 of the CGST Act. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in the business of metal scrap, had an order for brass scrap from a buyer in Gujarat. During transportation, due to a change in conveyance, the driver of one of the vehicles did not have the necessary documents for 4 parcels of goods. Consequently, the goods were detained, and a detention order was issued under section 129(1) of the CGST Act, along with a show-cause notice under section 130. The petitioner, after initially expressing reservation, later agreed to pay the tax and penalty under protest as computed by the respondent. The court, considering the narrow scope of the issue, directed the release of goods and conveyance upon the petitioner paying the tax and penalty amounting to &8377; 39,672 under protest, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under section 130, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge any adverse order. The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice and expressed willingness to pay the tax and penalty leviable under section 129 of the CGST Act. Despite the petitioner's cooperation, the goods and conveyance were not released by the respondents, leading the petitioner to seek relief from the court. The court, after hearing both parties, directed the petitioner to deposit the specified amount with the respondent, upon which the goods and conveyance were to be released, with the deposited amount treated as made under protest and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under section 130. In the judgment, the court partly allowed the petition, issuing directions for the petitioner to deposit the specified amount with the respondent, leading to the immediate release of the conveyance and goods. The deposited amount was to be considered a deposit made under protest, ensuring the petitioner's right to challenge any adverse order resulting from the ongoing proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act. The court made the rule absolute to the extent of the directions provided, permitting direct service of the order.
|
