Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 422 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTConfiscation of goods - wet tamarind - it is pleaded that the alleged show cause notice filed by the 1st respondent was prepared later after obtaining the signature and stamp of the petitioner on blank paper. - tax and penalty collected under other head as a condition for release of the commodity without conducting any assessment or penalty proceedings and instead, issuing impugned “summary of order” by treating the detention notice as assessment order - without giving opportunity of hearing and without passing assessment order or penalty order or confiscation order under the relevant provisions, the detention notice was treated as assessment order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice contains the stamp and signature of the petitioner. So also the confession letter dated 12.03.2018 is written in vernacular language i.e., Telugu and it also contains the signature of the petitioner. If issuance of the show cause notice and passing of the proceedings consequent upon the admission of the guilt of the petitioner are true, the respondents can be said to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 130. The question is whether the show cause notice dated 11.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner and whether the petitioner executed the confession letter dated 12.03.2018. The petitioner’s explanation in his reply is that he did not receive the show cause notice and did not execute the confession letter dated 12.03.2018. In the writ averments, the petitioner at the first instance did not take any plea that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. It is only after the respondents filed their counter and enclosed the show cause notice and other documents, then in the reply affidavit the petitioner for the first time took such plea. Hence, the contention of the petitioner does not merit consideration. So at the outset the confiscation proceedings and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation etc., undertaken by the 1st respondent cannot be said to be in violation of law and rules. Petition dismissed.
|