Case tittle | A.Irudayaraju VS The State Tax Officer |
court | Madras high court |
Honourable judge | Justice Anita Sumanth |
Citation | 2022 (10) GSTPanacea 583 HC Madras W.P.No.25931 Of 2022 And WMP Nos. 25014 And 25015 Of 2022 |
Judgment date | 10-October-2022 |
In this legal case, Mr. R. Senniappan, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate for the respondent, were heard. The petitioner is challenging two specific orders: an order of detention dated August 11, 2022, and an order of demand for tax and penalty dated September 13, 2022. Both orders were issued under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The incident in question involves the transportation of a second-hand Tata Hitachi Excavator, which was intercepted on August 1, 2022, at 11:20 p.m. at the Ammapet Bypass junction in Salem. Following this, the driver’s statement was recorded in Form GST MOV-01 on the same day. Alongside, a physical verification order was issued in Form GST MOV-02, also dated August 1, 2022, accompanied by a physical verification report in Form GST MOV-04.
The petitioner argues that there were procedural lapses in this case. Specifically, there was no permission sought or received via Form GST MOV-03 for extending the three-day period allowed for issuing the order in Form GST MOV-02. Furthermore, no order of detention was passed within the time frame stipulated by Section 129 of the Act. Additionally, no show cause notice was issued within the seven-day
In the case under review, Mr. R. Senniappan, representing the petitioner, and Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, representing the respondent, presented their arguments. The petitioner challenges two orders: one of detention dated August 11, 2022, and another demanding tax and penalty dated September 13, 2022, under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act).
The issue originated when the petitioner’s second-hand Tata Hitachi Excavator was intercepted on August 1, 2022, at 11:20 p.m. at the Ammapet Bye Pass junction in Salem. The driver’s statement was recorded in Form GST MOV-01 the same day. Additionally, an order for physical verification was issued in Form GST MOV-02, along with a verification report in Form GST MOV-04.
The petitioner argues that no extension was sought or received in Form GST MOV-03 for extending the three-day period for issuing the order in Form GST MOV-02. According to the petitioner, no detention order was passed within the period stipulated under Section 129, nor was a show cause notice issued within the seven-day period set under Section 129(3) of the Act.
Referencing a previous judgment (W.P.No.22646 of 2022, D.K.Enterprises vs. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner), it was noted that the statutory show cause notice must be issued within seven days of the vehicle’s interception, necessitating a detention order before this notice.
In this case, the vehicle was intercepted on August 1, 2022, but the detention order was not passed until August 11, 2022, and the show cause notice was issued on August 16, 2022. This delay violates the timelines stipulated under Section 129, rendering the proceedings invalid.
The Government Advocate highlighted that the petitioner had previously challenged the show cause notice dated August 16, 2022, in W.P.No.23816 of 2022. On September 6, 2022, the court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to respond to the show cause notice. The order reflected the petitioner’s request to withdraw and make an endorsement to that effect.
In this case, the petitioner challenged two orders: a detention order dated August 11, 2022, and a tax and penalty demand order dated September 13, 2022, both issued under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act). The petitioner had transported a second-hand Tata Hitachi Excavator, which was intercepted on August 1, 2022, at the Ammapet Bye Pass junction in Salem. The driver’s statement was recorded the same day, and physical verification orders and reports were also issued.
The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to seek and receive permission for extending the three-day period for issuing the physical verification order in Form GST MOV-02. They contended that no detention order was passed within the statutory period provided under Section 129 of the Act, and no show cause notice was issued within seven days as required by Section 129(3).
The court referred to a previous case (D.K.Enterprises v. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner) which outlined the timeline and procedure under Section 129 of the Act, emphasizing that a show cause notice must be issued within seven days from the date of interception, and an order of detention must be passed before that.
In this case, the vehicle was intercepted on August 1, 2022, but the detention order was issued only on August 11, 2022, and the show cause notice on August 16, 2022, violating the statutory timelines. The Government Advocate noted that the petitioner had earlier withdrawn a related writ petition with liberty to file a reply to the show cause notice. The court’s previous order directed the authority to consider the reply in accordance with the law.
The court rejected the Government Advocate’s argument that the delay was condoned by the earlier court order, noting that the issue of delay was not discussed in the previous proceedings. The petitioner’s reply had highlighted the statutory timelines, which the authorities failed to consider. Given the clear lapses in adhering to the statutory timelines, the court found in favor of the petitioner.
Download
PDF:
For
Reference Visit:
Read
Another Case Law:
GST Case
law: