The State Of Punjab VS Shiv Enterprises

The case at hand revolves around an appeal filed by the State against a judgment and order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No. 18392 of 2021. The High Court’s decision set aside the order of detention of goods/vehicle dated 30.08.2021 issued by the Office of Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh-2, as well as the notice dated 14.09.2021 issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The State, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with this ruling, has initiated the present appeal.

During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments at length. The notice dated 14.09.2021 required the original writ petitioner to respond within 14 days, explaining why the goods in question and the conveyance used to transport them should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the Punjab GST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017, and CGST Act, 2017. Additionally, it asked why the tax, penalty, and other charges payable in respect of such goods and conveyance should not be enforced.

The show cause notice contained specific allegations, including the nature of the violation and the legal provisions under which the confiscation and imposition of charges were proposed. The State contends that the High Court erred in setting aside the detention order and the subsequent notice, arguing that there were valid grounds for such actions under the relevant GST laws.

Further examination of the case is necessary to determine whether the High Court’s decision was justified in light of the facts presented and the applicable legal framework. The outcome of this appeal will have implications for the enforcement of GST laws and the authority of tax officials to detain goods and issue confiscation orders in cases of alleged violations.

the High Court noted that there was no allegation of contravention of any provision of the Act or rules, let alone an intent to evade tax. Additionally, it was not asserted by the State that the petitioner failed to account for goods liable for tax, or that they supplied goods without proper registration, or in contravention of any provisions of the Act.

The State had accused the petitioner of wrongful input tax credit claims. However, the High Court emphasized that a registered person could only claim input tax credit if they could demonstrate that the tax for such supply had been paid to the Government. Thus, the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 based on the show cause notice was deemed unsustainable by the High Court.

Furthermore, the High Court deemed it premature to opine on whether tax evasion had occurred or not. This determination was to be made in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under Section 130 had been issued. Consequently, the High Court found that it had materially erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and subsequently setting it aside.

Despite this finding, the High Court acknowledged that the matter of alleged tax evasion needed proper consideration through the appropriate legal channels. Therefore, while critiquing the High Court’s decision to set aside the show cause notice, it recognized the need for a thorough examination of the allegations.

The case revolves around an appeal filed by the State against a judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had set aside the order of detention of goods/vehicle issued by the State Tax Office and also invalidated a notice issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.

During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments extensively. The notice dated 14.09.2021 had summoned the original writ petitioner to justify why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated under various tax acts and why associated charges should not be paid. The notice specifically alleged duty evasion, which was yet to be examined by the relevant authority.

The High Court, however, entertained the writ petition against the show cause notice and annulled it under Section 130 of the Act. The Court observed that there were no allegations of contravening tax laws or intent to evade tax against the petitioner. The allegations pertained to a wrongful claim of input tax credit. The High Court’s decision to intervene was deemed premature, as the matter of tax evasion was to be determined through appropriate proceedings.

The Court recognized its error in quashing the show cause notice but upheld the release of the goods, as they had already been released by the appropriate authority. Consequently, the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside to the extent of quashing the notice dated 14.09.2021 under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The case was remanded to the appropriate authority for the petitioner to respond to the notice within four weeks. The authority was instructed to make a decision based on the merits of the case and in accordance with the law.

All arguments and defenses available to the original writ petitioner were to be considered by the appropriate authority. The appeal was partly allowed, and no costs were imposed given the circumstances of the case.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Supreme Court of India

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law