2024 (7) TMI 1203 - HC - GST

Challenge to notices, which were issued in Form GST MOV-01 and MOV-07 - petitioner had not generated e-invoices - transfort of PETN explosives from Salem to Vietnam - HELD THAT - On examining the petitioner's undertaking dated 15.06.2024 and the reply dated 18.06.2024, it is noticeable that the petitioner undertook to pay the penalty. It is also noticeable that the petitioner did not assert that the goods are exempted. In any event, whether goods are exempted or not is a mixed question of fact and law. This is required to be examined by the respondent. Since notices were issued and the petitioner replied thereto, it is just and appropriate that the adjudication process be concluded. Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to conclude the adjudication in respect of the penalty proceedings against the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to submit a reply to the revised notice within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notices issued for not generating e-invoices for transporting explosives; applicability of penalty under Section 129 of GST statutes; petitioner's contention of goods being exempted; examination of petitioner's undertaking and reply; conclusion of adjudication process within a specified timeline.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging notices issued for not generating e-invoices for transporting PETN explosives. The petitioner argued that the goods were exempted under GST statutes, invoking Section 129(a) to limit the penalty to Rs. 25,000. However, a 200% penalty was imposed, later revised to Rs. 56,20,104. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, highlighted the petitioner's undertaking to pay the penalty and lack of assertion regarding goods' exemption in subsequent communications.

Upon examination of the petitioner's undertaking and reply, the court noted the agreement to pay the penalty and absence of a claim regarding goods' exemption. The court emphasized that the determination of goods being exempted is a mixed question of fact and law, requiring assessment by the respondent through the adjudication process. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to conclude the adjudication within four weeks and allowed the petitioner to respond to the revised notice within one week. No costs were awarded, and a related miscellaneous petition was closed.

In conclusion, the judgment ensures the due process by directing the completion of the adjudication process within a specified timeline while acknowledging the need for a thorough examination of the exemption status of the goods.