9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded and an order could have been passed on 02.07.2019 i.e. before the scheduled date of hearing. This is suggestive of the fact that the reply of the writ-applicant in writing dated 08.07.2019 was also not taken into consideration. We are only concerned with the manner in which the respondent no.2 has proceeded to pass the final order under Section 129(3) of the Act - There is no doubt in our mind that the writ-applicant was not given any opportunity of hearing before concluding the proceedings for the purpose of Section 129(3) of the Act. To put it in another words, the case on hand is one of violation of sub-clause 4 of Section 129 of the Act, 2017. It provides that no tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 (Annexure-E); (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Order Reference No.ZA2407190000680 dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure-G) passed by the 2nd respondent herein with all consequential reliefs and benefits to the petitioner; (C) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby holding and declaring that there was no illegality in stock transferring a consignment of CPC Blue vide stock transfer challan and Part-A of Eway bill (Annexure-B) from one branch of the petitioner to another, and directing the respondent no.2 herein to return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conveyance along with the goods on 23.06.2019 and detention order was issued in the form GST MOV06 dated 23.06.2019 on the ground that Part-B of the e-way bill was not generated. 3.2 It is not in dispute that the writ applicant immediately deposited an amount of ₹ 9,25,200/- with the respondent no.2 herein. On deposit of such amount, the goods and the conveyance were released. On the very same day and date i.e. 23.06.2019, a notice under Section 129(3) of the Act in Form GST MOV-07 was served upon the writ-applicant calling upon the writ-applicant to show-cause as to why the applicable tax and also penalty equal to 100% of the tax payable should not be recovered. 3.3 It is pertinent to note that the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked to remain present on 08.07.2019 for the purpose of personal hearing, we fail to understand how the adjudication could have been concluded and an order could have been passed on 02.07.2019 i.e. before the scheduled date of hearing. This is suggestive of the fact that the reply of the writ-applicant in writing dated 08.07.2019 was also not taken into consideration. 7. To meet with the aforenoted situation, Mr.Soaham Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents tried to offer an explanation. According to the learned AGP, as the entire amount came to be deposited on the very first day i.e. the day and date of seizure then there was no question, thereafter, to give any opportunity of hearing to the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. To put it in another words, the case on hand is one of violation of sub-clause 4 of Section 129 of the Act, 2017. It provides that no tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section 3 without giving a person concerned an opportunity of being heard. The opportunity which the statute is talking about has to be meaningful opportunity and not just an eye wash. 10. In such circumstances referred to above, we are left with no other option, but to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2019 determining the tax and penalty and remit the matter to the respondent no.2 for fresh consideration of the entire issue after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant. 11. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
