9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pleader for the respondent as according to him, this violation is a recurring one from the petitioner, therefore a larger fine has to be imposed. The petitioner on payment of 25% of the demand of the penalty in each of the case, the goods and vehicles in question detained by the respondent shall be released. Such payment of 25% of the penalty is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to be urged or raised before the Appellate Authority against the final order now has been passed on 11.03.2022 - Petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.7882 & 7886 of 2022 And W.M.P.Nos.7885 &7889 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2022 - Honourable Mr.Justice R.Suresh Kumar For the Petitioner : Mr.G.Natarajan For the Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on would be taken under Section 130 of the Center/State Goods and Services Tax Act. 5. In view of the said mandate given in the said communication dated 07.03.2022 even though it is styled as a notice with the heading 'Notice', the same is challenged before this Court in these writ petitions. 6. Heard Mr.G.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, the absence of the full address of the buyer is not such a big offence or violation, for which, the goods in question cannot be detained by the Revenue. 7. Be that as it may, if notice is given, definitely defence would have been taken or reply would have been given, however though that is styled as a notice, they passed an order directing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng anything taken place. Therefore, cumulatively considering all these, such a fine has been imposed through the order dated 11.03.2022 and that order since is the final order, it is staring on the petitioner, however, the petitioner has only challenged the present communication dated 07.03.2022 which is only a notice, even though in the operative portion of the said notice, which is impugned herein, it has been stated that, the amount shall be paid within three days. 12. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 13. Now admittedly there has been an order dated 11.03.2022 which is a final order which is yet to be challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods and vehicles in question detained by the respondent shall be released. Such payment of 25% of the penalty is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to be urged or raised before the Appellate Authority against the final order now has been passed on 11.03.2022 if he is advised to do so. (ii) It is made clear that, if he has not paid the 25% of the demand of penalty, the goods and vehicles in question need not be released. (iii) It is further made clear that, after paying the 25% penalty as indicated above and the goods and vehicles are released, against which, subsequently if the petitioner has not chosen to assail the order of final penalty dated 11.03.2022, after lapse of 3 months period from the date of release of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
