9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to issue notice within seven days of detention or seizure - HELD THAT:- In TVL. V.V. IRON AND STEELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SARAVANA PANDIAN VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, RS-VII, INTELLIGENCE-II, CHENNAI [ 2023 (9) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the learned single Judge found facts to be that interception was on 30th August, 2023. In paragraph-12 there was calculation made to say that time for issuance of the notice would have expired on 6th September, 2023. Further facts in that case was, the notice was issued on 7th September, 2023. Reckoning by the learned Judge that time would expire on 6th September, 2023 was taking commencement of period of seven days for issuance of notice within the period of interception as on 31st August, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. He submits, there are two grounds of challenge to subsequently issued order of demand of penalty dated 21st August, 2024, that too upon the driver. Firstly, mandate in section 129 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is for the notice to be issued within seven days of detention or seizure. It was not so done. Commencing from seizure dated 7th August, 2024, notice dated 14th August, 2024 was one day out of time. 3. He relies on view taken by learned single Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. no.27140 of 2023 on judgment dated 14th September, 2023 (TVL. V.V. Iron and Steels v. State Tax Officer) . He relies on paragraph 12 in Centax Law Publications report. The paragraph is reproduced below. 12. Section 129 (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits, since the notice and demand issued are against the driver, his client cannot access the portal other than through the driver. This makes it impossible for his client to obtain recourse to law because the driver is engaged in driving vehicle for transport of goods. He is not his client s employee. Mr. Mishra disputes the submission. 6. We deal with the second point first. Sub-section (1) in section 129 commences with non-obstante clause, to include any person transporting goods or storing them while in transit. Proviso under the sub-section says no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detentions or seizure on the person transporting the goods. We are clear in our mind that the provision incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine with reckoning of periods as in law, to be from the date following. In this case the seizure was on 7th August, 2024. Notice dated 14th August, 2024 issued to the driver thus, in our view, was within 7 days of the seizure. 10. Petitioner in also having informed the authority on 14th August, 2024 that it is the owner of the goods, responsible therefor and ought to be noticed has by conduct sought to extend the period for issuance of the notice. As such the conduct militates against petitioner s contention on reckoning of the time. 11. On difficulties said as may be faced by petitioner in seeking recourse of law for remedy, Mr. Mishra points out from disclosure Form GST DRC-01 dated 14th August, 2024, mentioned therein is case ID as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
