9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 628 - HC - GSTSearch and seizure - seizure officer has authority to pass penalty order or not - Seeking to quash the order of confiscation/adjudication under Annexure-10 levying and demanding fine and penalty - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that the authorization for inspection, search and seizure has been granted by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Range on 22.12.2022 to Mr. M.K. Pradhan. Since the said power has been vested with him, on that basis he carried search and seizure operation of the petitioner s premises and thereafter passed the order of demand under Annexure-10 imposing penalty and fine under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act to the tune of Rs. 5,48,13,320/-. The dispute raised before this Court that the search and seizure authority having passed the order under Annexure-10 has exceeded its jurisdiction is rejected. Rather the authority has acted within the competency to pass such order. Therefore, the contention raised that he cannot be a judge of his own cause, that principle is not applicable to the present case. Had the same been passed under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, then matter would have been different. But here the order has been passed under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act. Though certain other questions were raised by Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that the order impugned is appealable one, this Court disposes of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue its remedy before the appropriate authority, if it is so advised. This writ petition stands disposed of.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of an order of confiscation/adjudication dated 15.04.2023 under Annexure-10, levying fine and penalty by the opposite party no.1. The main issue raised was whether the search and seizure officer had the authority to pass the final order under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act. Details of the Judgment: The petitioner contended that the search and seizure officer, Mr. M.K. Pradhan, exceeded his authority by passing the demand order under Annexure-10, imposing penalty and fine on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that Mr. Pradhan acted as the judge of his own cause, which was against the law. On the other hand, the Revenue Standing Counsel argued that Mr. Pradhan had the power to pass the order under Section 130 of the Act, and the order was appealable. The Court noted that the authorization for search and seizure was granted to Mr. Pradhan by the Joint Commissioner, and he had the competency to pass the order under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act. The Court rejected the contention that Mr. Pradhan could not be a judge of his own cause, as the order was passed under the relevant section. The Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the appropriate authority. This judgment clarifies the authority of a search and seizure officer to pass orders under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act and emphasizes the importance of availing the appeal process for such orders.
|
