completing the adjudication proceedings
Case Title | Yash Pigments LLP vs The Duputy State Tax Office & Assistant Commissioner(ST) . |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice R.Suresh Kumar |
Citation | 2022 (3) GSTPanacea 293 HC Madras W.P.No. 3920 /2022 & W.M.P.No.4070 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 15-March-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | M Hariharan |
Council for Respondent | V Prashanth Kiran |
Section | 129(3) of the GST Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Respondent |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice R.Suresh Kumar has held that petitioner should have replied and to appear before the Revenue and whatever defence he wants to take, he can take before the concerned authority of the Tax Department. Therefore Court is not inclined to or impressed with the grounds raised by the petitioner to have a successful challenge against the impugned proceedings.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in Form GST MOV-06 vide Notice No.345/2021-22 dated 07.02.2022 and quash the same.
The petitioner’s goods viz., pure lead was transported on 18.01.2022 in the vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-050UC-2346 which was intercepted by the tax authority of the State Tax Department consisting of Static Roving Sqaud at Gummidipoondi SIPCOT at 2.30 A.M
At the time of interception, it was found that the conveyance did not have a valid E-Way Bill or the E-Way Bill already obtained had expired on 16.01.2022. Therefore, on that ground the vehicle with goods was detained and a detention order has been issued in this regard on 07.02.2022. On the same day ie., on 07.02.2022 in Form No.GST MOV-06 and notice under Form GST MOV-07 under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued seeking reply from the petitioner
Petitioner submit that, it is not the case where there was no E-Way Bill. With regard to the goods which were in transportation, the E-Way Bill already taken had expired on 16.01.2022. However, due to COVID-19 situation, the transportation could not take place on or before 16.01.2022. Therefore, two days after it was taken and hence it cannot be construed as if the transportation had taken place without documentation. Therefore, the very basis for issuing the show cause notice as well as the detention order for adjudication is bad in law, he contended
Pursuant to which, it became the duty on the part of the Revenue to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued and hence it should be faced by the petitioner by giving a reply and to appear before the Revenue and whatever defence he wants to take, he can take before the concerned authority of the Tax Department. Without taking the said route in replying to the show cause notice and cooperating with the Revenue for completing the adjudication proceedings, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the very show cause notice itself along with the detention order..
completing the adjudication proceedings
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that in view of the lack of documents ie E-Way Bill which was admittedly not valid on the date of transportation ie on 18.01.2022, the vehicle was detained and detention order was issued.
Pursuant to which, it became the duty on the part of the Revenue to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued and hence it should be faced by the petitioner by giving a reply and to appear before the Revenue and whatever defence he wants to take, he can take before the concerned authority of the Tax Department. Without taking the said route in replying to the show cause notice and cooperating with the Revenue for completing the adjudication proceedings, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the very show cause notice itself along with the detention order
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to or impressed with the grounds raised by the petitioner to have a successful challenge against the impugned proceedings
completing the adjudication proceedings
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Show cause notice was issued and hence it should be faced by the petitioner by giving a reply and to appear before the Revenue and whatever defence he wants to take, he can take before the concerned authority of the Tax Department.
However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, during the interregnum ie., pending adjudication proceedings, the petitioner is ready and willing to give a bank guarantee for the penalty amount proposed, against which the goods can be released by the respondents and after the adjudication is completed, for which the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate, the further course of action can be decided, depending upon the decision to be made by the Revenue after completion of the adjudication proceeding.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: