Detention seizure and release
Case Title | AMI Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs Union of India |
Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan |
Citation | 2022 (8) GSTPanacea 328 HC Jharkhand W.P. (T) No. 2312 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 10-August-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Ms. Amrita Sinha |
Council for Respondent | Mr. Amit Kumar |
In favour of | Petitioner |
Section | Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 68 |
The Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi bench of Justices Aparesh Kumar Singh and Deepak Roshan, has held that suffer from procedural infirmities and lack of proper opportunity to the petitioner or the person transporting to defend himself. The respondents are at liberty to take a fresh decision after due opportunity to the petitioner as provided under the Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case was an alleged violation of Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 68 thereof as E-Way bill had expired at 11.59 p.m. on 17th September, 2021, the concerned vehicle bearing no. was intercepted at 08:20 a.m. on 18th September, 2021. However, the entire proceedings starting from detention of the vehicle by issuance of show-cause notice and the adjudication order in were passed on the same date i.e., 20th September, 2021. Petitioner went in appeal but lost there also. Petitioner had deposited the entire tax amount with interest and got the vehicle released on 21st September, 2021. Being aggrieved, writ petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings were held ex parte. No proper opportunity of furnishing reply or hearing was accorded to the petitioner or his driver. There was no intention to evade tax.
Respondents stated that the vehicle was intercepted on 18th September, 2021 since E-the Way bill had expired at 11:59 pm on 17th September, 2021 and no extension have been sought of the E-Way bill by moving an application, according to the respondents, notice with seven days’ time to submit reply was served on the authorized person of the company on 20th September, 2021, who was also directed to appear at 11: 30 a.m. on the said date, but he did not appear. On the request of the tax payer, the vehicle was released on payment of tax and interest as they did not want to submit anything on the issue. Therefore, the case was adjudicated ex parte. The vehicle has been released.
The Respondent also stated that the provisions of Section 129 do not contemplate the requirement of an intention to evade tax for imposing liability of tax, interest and penalty. Therefore, the adjudication order dated 20th September, 2021 and the appellate order dated 17th February, 2022 do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Detention seizure and release
COURT HELD
The court held that a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 129 shows that no goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods on the allegation of making transit in contravention. Further the section states that the proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty. Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of such goods fails to pay the amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the goods or conveyance so detained or seized shall be liable to be sold or disposed to recover the penalty.
Apparently, the proceedings have been initiated on the same date and concluded also on the same date. Though, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the proceedings were ended at the instance of the tax payer on the same date, but there is nothing to substantiate such contention. The impugned adjudication order and the appellate order therefore both suffer from procedural infirmities and lack of proper opportunity to the petitioner or the person transporting to defend himself.
As such, the impugned are set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to take a fresh decision after due opportunity to the petitioner as provided under the Act.
Detention seizure and release
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
From this case we can analyse that proper procedure as prescribed under GST Laws should be followed to impose penalty on the person who has violated the concerned provision. Here, the law prescribed a certain procedure to be followed in case of Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit but the GST officials did not follow the same.
Download Pdf:
For Reference Visit: