9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 470 - HC - GSTDetention of goods alongwith vehicle - non-application of mind - challenge against Ext.P9 order is mainly on the contention that, while in response to the notice received by the petitioner, he had clearly indicated that a substantial part of the turnover pertained to goods that were meant for export that were not liable to tax under the GST Act, the said contention was not examined by the respondent while passing Ext.P9 order - HELD THAT - From a perusal of Ext.P9 that the contention of the petitioner regarding export of goods was not considered by the respondent in Ext.P9, although the said contention was raised in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner - In my view, the said non-consideration vitiates Ext.P9 order. The Ext.P9 order is quashed and the respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner and after specifically referring to the contentions in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner - petition disposed off.
Issues: Challenge to Ext.P9 order confirming tax and penalty demand, non-consideration of petitioner's contention regarding export of goods, vitiation of Ext.P9 order due to non-application of mind.
In this judgment by the High Court of Kerala, the challenge was made against Ext.P9 order confirming a tax and penalty demand following the detention of a vehicle carrying goods owned by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that a significant portion of the turnover related to goods intended for export, which were not taxable under the GST Act. However, the respondent did not examine this contention, leading to the challenge that Ext.P9 order was flawed due to a lack of proper consideration by the respondent. Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the court observed that the petitioner's claim regarding the export of goods was not addressed in Ext.P9, despite being raised in Ext.P7 reply. The court concluded that this failure to consider the crucial aspect of export vitiates Ext.P9 order. Consequently, the court decided to quash Ext.P9 order and directed the respondent to issue fresh orders after a reevaluation, taking into account the contentions presented in Ext.P7 reply. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the respondent for this purpose on a specified date, and the respondent was given a deadline of one month to issue the revised orders in compliance with the court's directions.
|
