9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 672 - HC - GSTValidity of notice issued n Form GST-MOV-10 - As per the interim order, detained goods with vehicle have already been released after depositing the GST with penalty - Section 129(3) of GST Act - HELD THAT - By way of an ad-interim-order, we directed the applicant herein to deposit an amount of ₹ 50,40,972/- towards tax, with the respondent No.2 and an amount of ₹ 50,40,972/- towards the penalty, in the form of the Bank Guarantee of any Nationalized Bank - It is not in dispute that our order, dated 10.01.2020, has been fully complied with by the applicant herein. However, surprisingly, a notice dated 5th February, 2020, in Form GST-MOV-10, came to be issued. In all, four separate notices, in Form GST-MOV-10, came to be issued for four different vehicles. The understanding of the authority is that since the notice under Section 129(3) of the Act is dated 31st December, 2019, the applicant ought to have deposited the amount, towards tax and penalty, within 14 days thereof, and the failure, to deposit such amount, would entail the consequences of notice in Form GST-MOV-10 - there is no question of looking into Section 129(6) of the Act, more particularly, when this Court has passed a specific order dated 10th January, 2020. Except Section 129(6) of the Act, there is no other ground for the purpose of issuing notice in Form GST-MOV-10. If that be the case, then we have no hesitation in quashing the Form GST-MOV-10 notice straight way - Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 129(6) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in relation to a notice issued under Form GST-MOV-10. 2. Compliance with court orders regarding the deposit of tax and penalty amounts. 3. Misconstrual of court orders by the authority leading to the issuance of erroneous notices. 4. Validity of the notice issued in Form GST-MOV-10 dated 05.02.2020. Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 129(6) of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in relation to a notice issued under Form GST-MOV-10 The court examined the authority's understanding of Section 129(6) of the Act, 2017, which led to the issuance of a notice in Form GST-MOV-10. The authority believed that failure to deposit the tax and penalty amount within 14 days of a notice dated 31st December 2019 would trigger the consequences outlined in Section 129(6). However, the court found this interpretation erroneous, emphasizing that the specific order dated 10th January 2020 rendered the application of Section 129(6) unnecessary. The court concluded that the calculation of the 14-day period for issuing GST-MOV-10 was unfounded, leading to a quashing of the notice. Issue 2: Compliance with court orders regarding the deposit of tax and penalty amounts The court noted that the applicant had complied fully with the court's order dated 10th January 2020, which required the deposit of specific amounts towards tax and penalty. Despite this compliance, a notice in Form GST-MOV-10 dated 5th February 2020 was issued, causing confusion and raising questions about the need for such a notice when the applicant had already met the court's directives. The court highlighted the importance of adherence to court orders and the unnecessary burden placed on the applicant due to the misconstrued issuance of additional notices. Issue 3: Misconstrual of court orders by the authority leading to the issuance of erroneous notices The court observed that the authority had misconstrued the court's order dated 10th January 2020, leading to the erroneous issuance of Form GST-MOV-10 notices. The basis for issuing these notices was found to be legally flawed, as the authority incorrectly applied Section 129(6) of the Act, 2017. The court emphasized that the authority's actions were not in alignment with the court's directives, causing unwarranted confusion and procedural errors in the handling of the case. Issue 4: Validity of the notice issued in Form GST-MOV-10 dated 05.02.2020 The court, upon analyzing the content and context of the notice issued in Form GST-MOV-10 dated 5th February 2020, found it to be invalid and legally unsustainable. Given the compliance of the applicant with the court's previous order and the lack of grounds, other than Section 129(6) of the Act, for issuing the notice, the court deemed the notice in Form GST-MOV-10 as unwarranted. Consequently, the court allowed the application, quashed the impugned notices, and made the rule absolute to that extent. This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the court's meticulous examination of the legal provisions, compliance with court orders, and the authority's actions, ultimately leading to the quashing of the erroneous notices issued to the applicant.
|
