TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the lacuna, has proceeded to pass the rectification order after taking into consideration the objections and hence, the same is nothing but an attempt by the Proper Officer to ensure that the objections filed and contention raised by the petitioner are considered in the proper perspective and in the manner required under the Act. Hence, no malafides can be attributed to the same - this Court is of the opinion that the points raised by the petitioner does not survive for consideration. The matter requires adjudication of facts, which are seriously disputed by the parties - petition dismissed. - Writ Petition No.47450 of 2018(T-RES) - - - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - Mr. Justice G. Narendar For the Petitioner : Smt. Veena J. Kamath, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vention of the provision of Section 68(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017. On such basis the Revenue concluded that the same amounts to an attempt to avoid paying tax to the Government and same is liable to be levied as mandated under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order stands vitiated on the sole ground that there is non-compliance of the mandate under the provisions of Section 129(4) of the Act and hence the same warrant interference at the hands of this Court. 5. It is contended that the order of detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act vide Annexure-A, the order of confiscation vide Annexure-A2 and rectification order vide Annexure-A3 to the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the LR No.707, 801, 791, 769, 793, 790, 792, 796, 2733, 798, 794, 810, 797, 783, 768 and 800 total 16 LRs covering 24 Bundles of goods along with original photocopies of the connected LRs and cash bills. The contents of the letter are reproduced. 7. From a plain reading of the order, it is apparent that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no opportunity has been afforded under Section 129 (4) of the CGST Act stands falsified. That apart, the petitioner has also placed reliance on the document marked as Annexure-H, which is allegedly addressed to the Commercial Tax Officer and by the said letter, the petitioner states as under: Kindly take this confirmation letter on record and pass the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ruling of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 2018 SCC Online Ker 2696 in the case of The Assistant State Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Indus Towers Limited, with particular reference to the observations made by the Court at Paragraph Nos. 26and 27, wherein the Division Bench at para 27 after taking note of the fact of declaration having been made even prior to the commencement of transport found it necessary to order for release of goods. 12. In the instant case, no declaration has been made by the consignees either prior to the commencement of transport or even after the goods have been seized. Hence, the case put forth by the petitioner does not inspire confidence in the Court to further adjudicate the issue. Hence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
