9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in a day. 2. Mr. Vinay Shraff, learned advocate with Mr. Vishal Dave, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the notice under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (Annexure "J" to the petition), to point out that in terms of the said notice, the petitioner was directed to appear before the State Tax Officer-2. It was submitted that in response to the notice, the petitioner filed its reply. Reference was made to the impugned order passed under section 129(3) of the Act, to point out that the same has been passed on 28.09.2018 without waiting for the date of hearing, that is, 02.10.2018. It was submitted that therefore, the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. The attention of the court was invited to sub-section (4) of section 129 of the Act, which provides that no tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that despite the fact that in the show cause notice the date has been fixed, the order has been passed prior to the said date, without giving an opportunity of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty equivalent to twenty-five per cent of the tax within thirty days from the date of the notice. 7. It was further submitted that the statute is required to be read as a whole and that section 129 of the Act ought not to have been read in isolation. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kailash Chandra and others v. Mukundi Lal and others, AIR 2002 SC 829, wherein the court has held that a provision in the statute is not to be read in isolation. It has to be read with other related provisions in the Act itself, more particularly, when the subject matter dealt with in different sections or parts of the same statute is the same or similar in nature. 8. The attention of the court was also invited to the circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14th September, 2018 and more particularly, clause (5) thereof, which provides that in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the situations enumerated thereunder. It was submitted that the situations enumerated in the said circular are illustrative and not exhausti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , at the outset, it is to be noted that in case of Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the respondent had challenged the authority of the respondent demanding the tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, where the goods, which were to be delivered on or before 17.10.2022, could not be delivered in time and on 19.10.2022 when inspected, some of the e-Way bill numbers had shown expired. The entire truck along with the goods had been seized on account of expiration of the e-Way bill. Therefore, the Court had, after a detailed consideration, held that e-Way bill had expired 41 hours before and the release of goods of conveyance and transit through the authority concerned. Relevant observations are made in paragraphs 6 to 10 are as under : "6. We have heard learned advocates on both the sides and also have considered the material on the record. We notice section 129, which provides as under: "Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit 129(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on payment by the transporter of penalty under sub-section93) or one lakh rupees, whichever is less: Provided further that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazardous in nature or are likely to deprecate in value with passage of time, the said period of fifteen days may be reduced by the proper officer." 7. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, e-Way Bill had expired 41 hours before and the release of goods of conveyance and transit through the authority concerned. 8. We could notice that the detention is also on the ground that the goods are of expiration of the eWay bill number, which had expired during the transit and the same cannot be the ground for detaining and seizure of M.S. Billet along with the vehicle truck. 9. This Court in Govind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. vs. State of U.P., [2022] 140 taxmann.com 383 (Ahhahabad) has held that as there is expiry of eWay bill on transit, the seizure of said vehicle and the goods is not permissible under the law. In the case before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M/s. Daya Shaker Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Writ Petition No.12324 of 2022 on 10.08.2022, where also the Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
