9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shops and small traders in loose quantity, put it together until it weighs 10 or 11 tonnes and then sell the same to dealers in Kurnool and Anantapur Towns. The petitioner's annual turnover is around 20 to 30 Lakhs. It is said that at the time of rollout of the GST regime, the petitioner was instructed by the GST Officers that no registration is required for business entities having an annual sale turnover of 40 Lakhs. Hence, the petitioner is doing business without obtaining any registration. (b) While things stood thus, on 10.09.2021, the petitioner who procured scrap from various petty dealers, loaded the same in a vehicle bearing No. AP 02 TC 7299 and was proceeding towards a weigh bridge for weighment of the goods. When the said vehicle along with the scrap was on its way to the weigh bridge, the respondent no.1 herein is said to have stopped the vehicle and issued orders, for physical verification, in Form GST MOV-02, dated 10.09.2021. The said form came to be issued mainly on the ground that the petitioner transported the goods without any way bills. On physical verification, it was found that the petitioner was carrying 11,989 Kgs of scrap material. After issuance of phys ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not followed the procedure required under law while passing the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance, more particularly, Section 129 of the SGST Act, 2017. According to him, even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner has transported the goods without having valid documents, the procedure under Section 129(3) of the SGST Act, 2017 is required to be followed, meaning thereby that the Officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order for payment of tax and penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c). According to him, Sub-Section (5) of Section 129 of SGST Act, 2017 postulates that on payment of the tax referred to in Sub-Section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in Sub-Section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. Hence, it is said that the respondent no.1 herein issued the order of detention on 13.09.2021, without issuing any notice under Section 129(3); without giving any opportunity of hearing as required under Section 129(4) and without waiting for 14 days under Sub-Section (3) and (6) of Section 129 of SGST Act, 2017. 6. The princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e convinced that the contravention was with a definite intent to evade payment of tax. The action, in such circumstances, should be in good faith and not be a mere pretence. In other words, the authorities need to make out a very strong case. Mere suspicion may not be sufficient to invoke Section 130 of the Act straightway. (iv) If the authorities are of the view that the case is one of invoking Section 130 of the Act at the very threshold, then they need to record their reasons for such belief in writing, and such reasons recorded in writing should, thereafter, be looked into by the superior authority so that the superior authority can take an appropriate decision whether the case is one of straightway invoking Section 130 of the Act. (v) Even if the goods or the conveyance is released upon payment of the tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Act, later, if the authorities find something incriminating against the owner of the goods in the course of the inquiry, if any, then it would be permissible to them to initiate the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. (vi) Section 130 of the Act is not dependent on clause (6) of Section 129 of the Act. (vii) Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Section 129 of the Act deal with situation where the evasion of tax/contravention of the Act/Rules is detected during transit itself, requiring the adoption of summary like proceedings. Therefore, the said provisions operate in different spheres. (xi) The comparison of the provisions of Customs Act/ Excise Act on one hand and the provisions of the Act on the other, as sought to be drawn on behalf of the writ applicants, is not correct. Section 110(1) of the Customs Act is not comparable to Section 129(1) of the Act inasmuch as, the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act contemplates that the proper officer may seize the goods which are liable for confiscation, whereas the provisions of Section 129 contemplate that the proper officer may detain/ seize the goods/ conveyance in transit in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. (xii) The provisions of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act do not contemplate that the goods which are seized are to be released in a specific time limit, much less, within a period of six months. Apropos this, the said sections merely cast a duty on the department to issue a show cause notice within a period of si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds, in his reply stated that no personal hearing is required, as he has submitted his reply. Of course, this aspect is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but from the record, a detailed written reply was given explaining his stand, which was not accepted. If factual aspects or perusal of record is warranted, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal, as provided under the Act. The scope of interference under Article 226 is very limited, hence the order passed by the authority warrants no interference. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that he may be directed to pay tax and penalty as ordered. He also submits that the quantum of fine imposed towards confiscation of goods apparently is on a higher side. According to him, it is almost equal to the value of the goods. He also disputes levy of fine for confiscation of the conveyance as it is almost equal to the present day value of the vehicle. 11. Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents, submits that since there is clear violation of the provisions of the Act, order under challenge requires no interference. 12. Taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
