9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 784 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - Order of Confiscation of Goods and Conveyance - Demand of Tax, Fine and Penalty - contention is that the order impugned, came to be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner - HELD THAT - From the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Synergy Fertichem Pvt.Ltd v. State of Gujarat 2019 (12) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , it is clear that Sections 129 and 130 of the Act are independent feature and the Act does not contemplate invoking Section 129 before passing an order of confiscation under Section 130 of the Act. Opportunity of personal hearing not given - HELD THAT - It has to be noted that pursuant to the notice given, the petitioner herein submitted written objections, which are referred to in the order. The order also states that the owner of the goods, in his reply stated that no personal hearing is required, as he has submitted his reply. Of course, this aspect is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but from the record, a detailed written reply was given explaining his stand, which was not accepted. If factual aspects or perusal of record is warranted, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal, as provided under the Act. The scope of interference under Article 226 is very limited, hence the order passed by the authority warrants no interference. The writ petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to pay tax and penalty as ordered in the impugned order. But insofar as the payment of fine, we feel that the amount of Rs.9,00,000/-as ordered appears to be on higher side, as such the same is reduced to Rs.4,00,000/-. Insofar as fine relating to confiscation of conveyance is concerned, having regard to the fact that it is lying with the authorities since pretty long time, we feel that an amount of Rs.1,40,774/- as ordered to be paid may be reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the "Order of Confiscation of Goods and Conveyance and Demand of Tax, Fine, and Penalty" under Section 130 of the SGST Act, 2017. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 129 and 130 of the SGST Act, 2017. 3. Opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order. 4. Quantum of fine imposed for confiscation of goods and conveyance. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the "Order of Confiscation of Goods and Conveyance and Demand of Tax, Fine, and Penalty" under Section 130 of the SGST Act, 2017: The petitioner challenged the order dated 22.09.2021, which confiscated goods and conveyance and demanded tax, fine, and penalty under Section 130 of the SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the order violated Sub-Sections (3) and (6) of Section 129 and Sub-Section (4) of Section 130. The respondents countered that the driver did not carry necessary documents, specifically the e-way bill, as required under Section 68 read with Rule 138A of the SGST Act. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 129 and 130 of the SGST Act, 2017: The petitioner contended that the authorities did not follow the procedure under Section 129(3) of the SGST Act, which mandates issuing a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable before passing an order. The petitioner argued that the order was issued without waiting for the 14-day period stipulated under Sub-Sections (3) and (6) of Section 129. The court referred to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, which clarified that Sections 129 and 130 are independent and mutually exclusive. Section 130, which deals with confiscation, does not require prior invocation of Section 129. 3. Opportunity of personal hearing before passing the order: The petitioner claimed that no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The court noted that the petitioner submitted written objections, which were referred to in the order. The order also stated that the petitioner indicated no personal hearing was required. The court held that the petitioner should have preferred an appeal if factual aspects needed examination, as the scope of interference under Article 226 is limited. 4. Quantum of fine imposed for confiscation of goods and conveyance: The petitioner argued that the fine imposed was almost equal to the value of the goods and the vehicle, which was excessive. The court considered the facts and reduced the fine for confiscation of goods from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. The fine for the conveyance was reduced from Rs.1,40,774/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. Conclusion: The court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pay the tax and penalty as ordered. The fines were reduced as mentioned. The order passed by the authority was upheld with modifications in the quantum of fines. All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
