2024 (7) TMI 1035 - HC - GST

Detention of goods u/s 129 (1) of the APGST/CGST IGST Acts, 2017 - physical verification of the goods show that the value set out in the invoices is far lesser than the fair market value and there is huge difference between the maximum retail price printed on the said goods against the value shown in the invoices - HELD THAT - Without going into the question of whether the endorsement has been made after proper appreciation of the material before the 1st respondent, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, keeping in view the objections raised by the petitioner before this Court. The 1st respondent shall pass necessary orders on the show-cause notices issued under Sections 129 130 of the APGST/CGST IGST Acts, 2017, within a period of one (1) week from today after hearing the petitioner on these notices again - The order of the 1st respondent shall be passed before the reference to the undated endorsement which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. It is further clarified that any decision taken by the 1st respondent shall be uninfluenced by any of the observations in the said endorsement. Petition disposed off.

Issues: Detention of goods, issuance of detention order, penalty imposition, confiscation notice, rejection of objections, judicial remedy

The judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved a transporter who was detained by the commercial tax authorities while transporting fireworks from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh. The detaining authority issued an order under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging that certain bundles of fireworks were not covered by proper documentation, potentially constituting clandestine transportation. Subsequently, the authority issued a physical verification report and a show-cause notice to the transporter. The transporter responded by requesting the release of all goods except the disputed bundles. The authority proceeded to impose penalties and issued a confiscation notice based on discrepancies in the value of the goods. The transporter challenged these actions through a writ petition, arguing that the authority had not considered their objections properly. The court directed the authority to pass necessary orders on the show-cause notices within a week after hearing the transporter again, emphasizing that the decision should not be influenced by any previous endorsements. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs awarded, and pending petitions were closed.

The first issue in the judgment revolved around the detention of goods and the subsequent issuance of detention orders by the commercial tax authorities. The transporter was detained while transporting fireworks, and the authority alleged that certain bundles were not covered by proper documentation, potentially constituting clandestine transportation. This issue led to a series of actions by the authority, including the issuance of a physical verification report and a show-cause notice to the transporter. The transporter responded by requesting the release of all goods except the disputed bundles, setting the stage for further legal proceedings.

The second issue addressed in the judgment was the imposition of penalties and the issuance of a confiscation notice by the commercial tax authorities. Following the detention of the goods, the authority imposed penalties on the transporter for the disputed bundles of fireworks and issued a confiscation notice based on discrepancies in the value of the goods. These actions prompted the transporter to challenge the authority's decisions through a writ petition, alleging that their objections were not properly considered. This issue raised questions about the authority's enforcement actions and the transporter's legal recourse in response to the penalties and confiscation notice.

The third issue focused on the rejection of objections raised by the transporter and the subsequent judicial remedy sought through the writ petition. The transporter replied to the show-cause notice and objections raised by the authority, but the authority rejected these objections through an undated endorsement. This rejection prompted the transporter to approach the High Court through a writ petition, arguing that their objections were not adequately considered. The court directed the authority to pass necessary orders on the show-cause notices after hearing the transporter again, emphasizing the importance of a fair and unbiased decision-making process.

In conclusion, the judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh addressed multiple issues arising from the detention of goods, imposition of penalties, issuance of a confiscation notice, rejection of objections, and seeking judicial remedy through a writ petition. The court's directions emphasized the importance of a fair and unbiased decision-making process by the authorities, ensuring that the transporter's objections were properly considered and addressed within a specified timeframe.

← Previous Next →