9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the Division Bench of this Court had quashed the detention and directed for release of the goods and also imposed costs. The facts of the present case is entirely different as stated above. Therefore the arguments of the petitioner before this court that if the dealer does not come forward for depositing the penalty amount as determined under section 129(3) of the Act the proceedings ought to have been initiated under sections 73, 74 and 75 of the Act read with section 122 of the Act cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage as neither in the reply to the show cause notice nor before the appellate authority any submission was made. Further since the petitioner has submitted its reply taking the stand that there was break down of the vehicle and the driver fell ill but no reason has been assigned by any of the authorities in the impugned orders for disbelieving the same - since the authorities below have not recorded any findings with regard to the submissions made by the petitioner the impugned orders dated 27.3.2023 and 18.4.2023 as well as seizure memo dated 23.7.2023 could not be sustained in the eye of law and are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the formalities goods were in transit from Auraiya U.P. to Jalpaiguri, W.B. and on way the Driver of the Vehicle No. UP-77-AN-6825 fell ill and there was also some break down of the vehicle, therefore onwards journey could not be continued to reach the destignation before 12.3.2023. 4. The Vehicle was inercepted by respondent no.2 on 13.3.2023 and Form GST MOV04 was prepared on 14.3.2023. Thereafter Form GST MOV01 was prepared on 23.3.2023 and consequently an order was passed on the same day that the goods in question are being carried without proper ducuments as E-way bills have expired. Thereafter on the same day From GST MOV 06 was prepared and subsequently respondent no.2 issued notice in From GST MOV 07 under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to impose penalty of Rs. 11,18,624/- under section 129(1)(a) of the Act and Rs. 36,66,606/- under section 129(1)(b) of the Act which has been annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. An order under section 129 (3) of the Act was passed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,18,624/- for release of goods. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order the petioner preferred appeal before under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (61) GSTL 385 (All.) He has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. ( 2022 (57) GSTL 97 (SC) in which while rejecting the claim of the revenue cost has also been enhanced by the Apex Court. He further submits that proceedings under section 129(1) of the Act could be initiated if the parties come forward and deposit the penalty of tax but once the party is not ready to deposit the tax under section 129(3) of the Act the respondents are duty bound to initiate proceedings by taking recourse to Sections 73,74 and 75 read with Section 122 of the Act. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. State of U.P . (2022) 1 Centax 79 (All.). He further submits that the impugned order passed under section 129(3) of the Act could not be sustained for determining the tax and penalty in pursuance of the proceedings under section 129(3) of the Act. He further submits that in view of the submissions mentioned above the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the detained goods deserve to be released without penalty. 10. Per contra, Sri Rishi Kumar, learned ACSC sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner was not clear as he transited the goods after expiry of the E-way bills. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Driver fell ill and there was break down of the vehicle it was beyond the control of the petitioner and goods could not be transported within the time mentioned in the E-way bills but has not brought any material or evidence before the respondent authorities or before this Court, therefore, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and of this Court in Govind Tabacco Manufacturing Co. (supra) placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail. 17. In Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt.Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court in paragraph no.3 has recorded the finding of the High Court that there was traffic blockage at Basher Bagh due to the anti CAA and NRC agitation which prevented the movement of vehicle, due to which, the goods could not be delivered within the time. Considering those facts, the Apex Court not only dismissed the appeal of the Revenue but also enhanced the costs. Such facts are not in the present case. The stand taken by the petitioner is only that the driver of the vehicle fell ill and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
