9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 378 - HC - GSTDetention order - challenge on the short ground that the impugned proceedings are barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is submitted by both the counsel for the petitioner and respondent that the order u/s.129(3) of the Act is passed on the eighth day from the date of service of notice, whereas the time line stipulated under Section 129(3) of the Act is that the order ought to be passed within a period of 7 days from the date of service of such notice. Inasmuch as admittedly, the impugned proceedings are beyond the time lines stipulated under Section 129(3) of the Act, the same is fatal to the order in terms of the order of this Court in A. IRUDAYARAJU VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SALEM 2022 (10) TMI 555 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . The impugned proceedings are set aside and the vehicles/goods in question shall be released forthwith - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenging impugned order and detention under GST Act, 2017 based on limitation prescribed under Section 129(3) of the Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned order and detention dated 15.12.2022 and 07.12.2022 respectively, arguing that the proceedings were barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on a previous order dated 10.10.2022 in a similar case, where the court held that the authority must pass an order of detention before the stipulated 7-day period under Section 129(3) of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines, as failure to issue an order of detention or show cause notice in time would vitiate the proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner had been allowed to file a reply to the show cause notice in a previous case, but this did not condone the delay in issuing the order of detention. The court found merit in the petitioner's submission, set aside the impugned orders, and ordered the immediate release of the vehicle in question. In analyzing the relevant dates, it was observed that the date of detention was 07.12.2022, the notice was issued on the same day, and the order of detention was passed on 15.12.2022. Both counsels acknowledged that the order under Section 129(3) of the Act was passed on the eighth day from the date of service of notice, contrary to the statutory requirement of passing the order within 7 days. As the impugned proceedings exceeded the stipulated timelines under Section 129(3) of the Act, the court deemed them fatal to the order, following the precedent set in a previous case. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the immediate release of the vehicles/goods in question. Overall, the court's decision was based on the strict interpretation of the statutory timelines under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits for issuing orders of detention, highlighting that any delays in the process could render the proceedings invalid. By setting aside the impugned orders and ordering the release of the vehicle, the court upheld the significance of procedural compliance in such matters.
|
