9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 889 - Commissioner - GSTJurisdiction - appropriate forum to file appeal - Detention of goods alongwith conveyance - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority Sh Kailash Ram Jodhawat, STO, Circle-lll, Bhilwara has passed the impugned order on 04.02 2019 which is not in the jurisdiction of this appellate authority as well as the appellant also stated at the time of personal hearing that the appeal has been filed wrongly. Section 6(3) of the CGST Act specifically mandates that any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under CGST Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the SGST or UTGST Act. Similar provisions exist in SGST/UTGST Act also. In this case, appeal shall lie before the jurisdictional authority of SGST, Hamirrgarh, Bhilwara. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for the reason being beyond jurisdiction of this appellate authority.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, Detention of Goods and Conveyance, Appeal against Impugned Order
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority: The appeal was filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by a company against an Order in Original passed by the State Tax Officer. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and found that the impugned order was not within the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. The appellant acknowledged the error during a personal hearing and expressed the intention to withdraw the appeal. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal citing Section 6(3) of the CGST Act, which mandates that proceedings for rectification, appeal, and revision should be directed to the appropriate authority under the respective Acts. The appeal was deemed beyond the jurisdiction of the appellate authority and was dismissed accordingly. Detention of Goods and Conveyance: The case involved discrepancies in the transportation of goods, specifically Sponge Iron, purchased by the appellant from a supplier in Karnataka and sold to another party in Rajasthan. The conveyance carrying the goods was intercepted, leading to an inspection that revealed discrepancies in the vehicle details compared to the submitted documents. Consequently, the goods and the conveyance were detained under relevant sections of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the CGST Act, 2017. This detention resulted in the confirmation of a demand for tax and penalty amounting to ?3,64,724. The detention was based on discrepancies noted during the inspection, primarily related to the vehicle not matching the information provided in the documents. Appeal against Impugned Order: The appellant, dissatisfied with the impugned order resulting from the detention of goods and conveyance, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. However, during the proceedings, it was revealed that the appeal was erroneously filed before the wrong authority. The appellant admitted the mistake and expressed the willingness to withdraw the appeal. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) clarified that the appeal should have been directed to the jurisdictional authority of SGST in Hamirgarh, Bhilwara, as per the provisions of the CGST Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to being outside the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the incorrect filing of the appeal before the appellate authority, the detention of goods and conveyance due to discrepancies, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal based on jurisdictional grounds. The detailed analysis provided insights into the legal aspects of the case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the correct jurisdictional procedures in matters related to tax appeals and detentions.
|
