9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 632 - HC - GSTRelease of detained goods - Section 129(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 as well as notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST act - HELD THAT - The pendency of the writ petition is not a bar for completing the adjudication proceedings contemplated under Section 129 of the CGST act. There will be a direction to the second respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 and finalise all the proceedings at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already completed - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Quashing of orders of detention under Section 129(1) of CGST Rules, 2017 and notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST act. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court pertains to a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking the quashing of Exts.P8 and P9, which are orders of detention under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, along with a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST act. The petitioners had furnished a bank guarantee pursuant to Ext.P8 and obtained the release of goods; however, the adjudication proceedings following these orders had not been completed. It was highlighted that due to the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent, in this case, the Government Pleader, had not finalized the adjudication proceedings. Upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader, the Honorable Judge opined that the pendency of the writ petition should not impede the completion of the adjudication proceedings mandated under Section 129 of the CGST act. Consequently, a directive was issued to the second respondent to conclude the adjudication proceedings in connection with Ext.P8 promptly, ensuring the finalization of all proceedings within ten days from the receipt of the judgment, if not already completed. Additionally, it was mandated that before finalizing the proceedings as instructed, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to be heard either in person or through a representative. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the expeditious completion of the adjudication proceedings as per the provisions of the CGST act, emphasizing the importance of affording the petitioner a fair hearing before finalizing the said proceedings.
|
