9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1228 - HC - GSTSeeking direction to the respondent to release the vehicle and consignment - invalid E-way bill - E-way bill has been generated at 09.56pm at 03.12.2022 at Tiruvannamalai but movement of the vehicle was noticed on 03.12.2022 at 10 56pm at Thoppur Toll. - Section 129(3) of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In any event, on a demurrer even if it is construed as 10.56p.m, the question as to whether the vehicle could have crossed Thoppur Toll within one hour of declaration of e-way bill are all matters turning on facts. Section 129 provides for issue of notice / hearing before order is made. This Court is informed that notice has been issued on 04.12.2022. The order has to be made within 7 days but owing to the captioned writ petition being filed on 09.12.2022, making of the order has been put on hold is learned Revenue counsel's say. This is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned notice. Let the petitioner respond to 04.12.2022 notice, let the respondent consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner as per Section 129(3) of C-G ST Act. Though obvious, it is made clear that if the order is adverse to the writ petitioner, it is open to the writ petitioner to assail the same in a manner known to law - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to notice dated 04.12.2022 under various Goods and Services Tax Acts. 2. Alleged violation of Rule 138 of Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 3. Interpretation of facts regarding the movement of goods and generation of e-way bill. 4. Consideration of whether the impugned notice is valid under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenges a notice dated 04.12.2022 issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner contests the interception of goods during transport and seeks a direction for the release of the vehicle and consignment. The primary argument revolves around the alleged absence of any violation of the relevant Acts or Rules, warranting interference with the impugned notice. 2. The petitioner's counsel argues against the notice based on the assertion that there was no breach of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act or its associated Rules. However, the Revenue counsel points to Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, emphasizing discrepancies between the timing of e-way bill generation and the observed movement of the vehicle, suggesting a potential violation. 3. The discussion delves into the factual aspects concerning the timing of the e-way bill generation and the vehicle's movement. The court considers the possibility of the vehicle crossing a toll plaza within a short timeframe after the e-way bill declaration, highlighting the need for a detailed examination of the facts. The issuance of the notice and the impending order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act are also addressed, with the court being apprised of the procedural timeline. 4. Ultimately, the court determines that the case does not warrant interference with the impugned notice. It directs the petitioner to respond to the notice and allows the respondent to evaluate the matter in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The judgment dismisses the writ petition while preserving the petitioner's rights to challenge any adverse order through appropriate legal means, emphasizing the adherence to due process and legal remedies available to the parties involved.
|
