9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s.130 of the Central GST Act, 2017 and to further direct the respondent no.2 to release the goods and the vehicle No.KA14B3156 which has been seized by the Respondent no.2 during the pendency of the writ petition otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. (c) That any other and further relief which is just and proper may kindle be granted by this Hon'ble Court. 2. We need not to go into the facts in details, as on date, the controversy is in a very narrow compass.. 3. On 21st May, 2019, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order: " 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.05.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9619 of 2019. 2. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, by way of adinterim measure, the respondents are directed to release the detained goods together with the conveyance, subject to the petitioner paying the tax and penalty as computed by the respondent authorities and also subject to filing a solemn undertaking before this court to the effect that the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to evade the payment of tax. According to Mr. Agrawal, the said decision on the part of the authority concerned is missing in the Form GST MOV10. It is submitted that the showcause notice, in such circumstances, could be termed as without jurisdiction. 8. In support of the aforesaid submissions, strictly reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat; Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019 and allied matters; decided on 23rd December, 2019, more particularly, the observations made by the Bench in the Paragraphs101 to 104. 9. On the otherhand, this writ-application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Soaham Joshi, the learned AGP appearing for the State. The learned AGP would submit that since the matter is at the stage of showcause notice, the writ-applicant should be asked to file an appropriate reply and make his case good before the authority for the purpose of getting the showcause notice discharged. The learned AGP would submit that mere omission in the showcause notice with regard to intent to evade the payment of duty by itself would not make the showcause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned is convinced that the contravention was with a definite intent to evade payment of tax. We may give one simple example. The driver of the vehicle is in a position to produce all the relevant documents to the satisfaction of the authority concerned as regards payment of tax etc., but unfortunately, he is not able to produce the eway bill , which is also one of the important documents so far as the Act, 2017 is concerned. The authenticity of the delivery challan is also not doubted. In such a situation, it would be too much for the authorities to straightway jump to the conclusion that the case is one of confiscation, i.e, the case is of intent to evade payment of tax. 103. We take notice of the fact that practically in all cases, after the detention and seizure of the goods and the conveyance, straightway notice is issued under Section 130, and in the said notice, one would find a parrot like chantation "as the goods were being transported without any valid documents, it is presumed that the goods were being transported for the purposes of evading the tax". We have also come across notices of confiscation, wherein it has been stated that the the driver of the conveyance i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med is not subject to objective test. The language of Section 130 of the Act leaves no room for the relevance of an official examination as to the sufficiency of the ground on which the authority may act or proceed for the purpose of confiscation at the very threshold. But, at the same time, there must be material based on which alone the authority could form its opinion in good faith that it has become necessary to call upon the owner of the goods as well as the owner of the conveyance to show-cause as to why the goods and the conveyance should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act. The notice for the purpose of confiscation must disclose the materials, upon which, the belief is formed. It could be argued that it is not necessary for the authority under the Act to state reasons for its belief. For the time being, we proceed on the basis of such argument. But, if it is challenged that the notice is bereft of the necessary details or the satisfaction of the authority is imaginary or based on mere suspicion, then the authority must disclose the materials, upon which, his belief was formed as it has been held by the Supreme Court in Sheonath Singh's case [AIR 1971 SC 2451]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
