9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1392 - HC - GSTInvocation of revisional jurisdiction conferred u/s 108 of KGST Act - HELD THAT - Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in respect of their respective claims, having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not notified nor provided any opportunity by respondent No. 3 before passing the impugned order purporting to invoke Section 108 of KGST Act, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order reserving liberty in favour of the respondent to take appropriate steps in accordance with law after duly notifying the petitioner and hearing him in accordance with law. Impugned order at Annexure-A dated 21.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned proceedings under Section 108 of KGST/CGST Act, 2017. Violation of principles of natural justice. Analysis: The petitioner sought relief to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 21.05.2024 under Section 108 (1) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 and any other relief deemed fit by the court. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply and submissions in response to an Order of Detention dated 16.11.2023, which were rejected. The goods were later released, but the petitioner was aggrieved by the imposition of a penalty by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner contended that the subsequent order by respondent No. 3 under Section 108 of KGST Act was illegal and violated principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 108 was valid. The court observed that the petitioner was not notified or given an opportunity before the impugned order was passed, leading to a violation of natural justice. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 3, and reserved liberty for respondent No. 3 to take necessary steps in accordance with the law after notifying and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The court kept all contentions between the parties, including jurisdiction and maintainability, open without expressing any opinion on the same.
|
