TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory right of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal cannot be taken away once the Act itself has been enforced. Attention of the Court has been invited to Section 112(3) and 113(1) of the Act which defines the jurisdiction of the C.G.S.T. Tribunal. Section 112(3) and Section 113(1) of the Act is reproduced hereinafter:- ''112(3) The Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5360 was detained by the C.G.S.T. authorities on 9.1.2020 at 6:20 A.M. on Yamuna Expressway while it was transporting a drilling machine. The driver of the vehicle produced an E-way bill electronically as per which the machine was being transported from SD Technologies Kisan Vihar, Ghansoli, Maharashtra to Sector 3, Block 10 Rajendra Nagar, Ghaziabad. The value of the machine along with tax was shown as Rs. 41,30,000/-. No tax invoice, chalan, hard copy etc. was found with the vehicle. Finding it to be a violation of Rule 138 of the G.S.T. Rules the vehicle was detained and a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the Act. In reply to the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act, the petitioner stated that the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is submitted that this machine was purchased in the year 2018 from Maharashtra and the amount of GST payable for such purchase has already been paid in the year 2018 itself. It is submitted that while passing order under Section 129(3) of the Act the Assessing Authority is expected to determine the amount of tax and penalty payable and release the seized goods upon deposit of such amount. Submission is that the Assessing Authority and the first Appellate Authority have failed to examine petitioner's claim on merits with regard to execution of job work and the consequential liability to pay tax and penalty. It is also urged that job work since is yet to be performed and no payment is made, therefore, no amount is actually payable tow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty; (b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per cent. of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and penalty; (c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay tax has to be determined. According to petitioner in terms of the above provisions no liability to pay tax has yet arisen as the contract of service is yet to be performed and no payment for services has yet been received. It is submitted that the authorities have not correctly examined facts in light of the claim set up by it and, therefore, the orders passed are unstained. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case the petitioner did accept that the e-way bill with the vehicle did not contain correct description with regard to movement of goods. Another e-way bill (though not available with the vehicle, at the time of detention) has also been produced along with details of job work executed in favour of the petitioner. The tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Officer, at the first instance. Since the exercise in that regard is not found to be in accordance with law the orders impugned dated 28.1.2020 and 6.2.2020 cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. Petitioner shall appear before the proper Officer on 5.10.2020 and shall furnish all such details as are available with it to substantiate its plea already been taken in its reply on 14.1.2020. The proper Officer is requested to examine such defence of the petitioner and thereafter determine the liability, if any, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not determined the liability of the petitioner on merits and all issues of fact are left open to be examined by the proper Officer, at the first instance. Such exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|