Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 541 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty - driver could produce the e-way bill but failed to produce the tax invoice and delivery challans - according to the petitioner no adjudication was made by the adjudicating authority - reply to SCN not given - HELD THAT - Since there is factual dispute inasmuch as according to the petitioner no adjudication was made by the adjudicating authority and as per the learned Advocate for the respondents, a show-cause notice was served but as the petitioners has not given any reply to such show-cause notice, the adjudication has not been made till date and no tax is also imposed as on this date. In view of such submission and considering the fact that the learned Advocate for the respondents has served a copy of the show-cause notice to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to submit a reply to the adjudicating authority within 3 days from this date and the adjudicating authority thereupon shall adjudicate as to whether that petitioner is liable to pay any penalty or not after giving opportunity to the petitioners or their authorized representative of hearing within a fortnight thereafter - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
Interpretation of GST laws regarding the movement of own goods for service provision, detention of trailers by tax authorities, compliance with GST rules on documentation, and the need for adjudication before imposing penalties. Interpretation of GST laws: The petitioner, a construction company, argued that transporting its own machinery for work does not constitute a supply of goods liable to GST, citing Circular No.80/54/2018-GST. The movement of goods on their account, not for further supply, should not attract GST. The petitioner contended that no GST was payable for transporting machinery for work execution. Detention of trailers by tax authorities: The respondent detained the trailers for failure to produce tax invoices and delivery challans, demanding a penalty. The petitioner claimed illegal detention, citing the absence of a formal order or communication from the authorities. The respondent argued that under Rule 138 A of the GST Rules, the person in charge must produce necessary documents during vehicle interception. Compliance with GST rules on documentation: The petitioner's failure to produce delivery challans led to the imposition of tax as per Rule 55 of the GST Rules. The respondent highlighted the necessity of proper documentation during the transportation of goods to avoid automatic penalties. Need for adjudication before imposing penalties: A factual dispute arose regarding whether an adjudication had taken place, with the petitioner denying any formal process. The court directed the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice within three days for adjudication by the authority. The importance of providing an opportunity for hearing before imposing penalties was emphasized. This judgment addresses the interpretation of GST laws concerning the movement of own goods, the detention of trailers by tax authorities, the compliance requirements for documentation under GST rules, and the necessity of adjudication before imposing penalties. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice within three days for adjudication by the authority, ensuring a fair process before any penalty imposition.
|