9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 313 - HC - GSTDetention of goods alongwith vehicle - alleged wrong classification of the goods - Section 129(1) of CGST Act - HELD THAT - At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the goods have already been released and the issue of correct classification can only be adjudicated in view of the pleas raised before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act. The present writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the aforesaid impugned order dated 3.5.2019 before the Appellate Authority.
Issues:
1. Detention of goods due to alleged wrong classification under Section 129(1) of CGST Act 2. Imposition of tax, fine, and penalty on the petitioner and transporter 3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to determine the rate of tax 4. Release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee 5. Disposal of the writ petition as infructuous with liberty to file a statutory appeal Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm manufacturing Ayurvedic products, had a consignment detained by a CGST Officer for alleged wrong classification under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. This led to the issuance of a show cause notice and an order imposing tax, fine, and penalty on the petitioner and the transporter. 2. The High Court passed an order directing the release of the goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the amount in question. The validity of the bank guarantee was to be maintained until the final adjudication of the matter, with the goods to be released within two days of the guarantee being furnished. 3. During arguments, both parties agreed that the goods had been released, and the issue of correct classification could only be decided by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, allowing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order within 30 days. 4. It was further agreed that if the appeal was filed within the specified timeframe, the question of limitation would not be raised by the respondents. The Appellate Authority was expected to decide on the appeal within the next six months in accordance with the law, providing the petitioner with an opportunity for further redressal of the matter.
|
