Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2020 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 435 - HC - GSTRecovery of unpaid GST - case of the department was that the petitioner was selling packaged marked rice with registered trademark which activity, after 22.09.2017 was subject to Central as well as State GST which the petitioner had not paid - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner has raised number of disputed questions of facts about the nature of its activities and the manner in which the petitioner was selling rice after 22.09.2017. It is not possible for this Court, nor even necessary to examine these disputed questions of facts acting as a first appellate authority in a writ petition. For example, the petitioner, as noted, had contended that the segregation of the stock of rice in different qualities was for internal purpose and not for marking at the time of sale. When the raiding party had found stock of packaged rice carrying registered marks, the defence of the petitioner was that the same was old stock sold prior to 22.09.2017 but returned due to quality disputes which was still lying in the godown. We are not commenting on whether such defences are genuine or not. The order passed by the adjudicating authority takes to account the background of the case, refers to the case of the department in issuing of notice, records the stand of the petitioner in opposition, records in detail the contentions of the petitioner during personal hearing and thereafter records his own reasons for the conclusions. The order thus is a speaking order and cannot be criticized by suggesting that no reasons are recorded or that it is a non-speaking order - If its effect is such that a part of the order of the competent authority which has been tainted on account of this breach, is severable and insofar as his foundational findings are concerned, the same still be maintained, it may not be necessary to set aside the entire order only on this ground. We have made these remarks, particularly since the petitioner does not seem to have disputed the seizure of certain stock of rice bags, including the bags carrying registered trademarks. However, all these aspects must be gone into by the appellate authority and cannot be examined in a writ petition at the first instance. Petition dismissed.
|