TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bereft of any reasoning. Reasons, it is well known, are the heart and soul of an order passed by a judicial/quasi-judicial order, without which it is difficult to pronounce one way or other as regards the validity of such order - the matter is required to be restored to the file of the second respondent for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7189 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2019 - MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : KUNTAL A PARIKH (7757) For The Respondent (s) : MR UTKARSH SHARMA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, which lies in a narrow compass and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay bills was not generated. Thereafter an order dated 27.3.2019 issued for physical verification in FORM GST MOV-02 and an order dated 27.3.2019 for detention of goods and vehicle in FORM GST MOV-06 were served upon the transporter of the goods. It is the case of the petitioners that upon being informed about the detention, the petitioners immediately generated Part-B of the E-way bills in respect of the transactions and approached the second respondent and gave explanation. It was submitted that the goods being perishable in nature and due to urgency of transporting the goods, the transporter had commenced transportation of goods immediately on clearance by the customs authorities without waiting for Part-B of the E-way bills. It was also submitted that the imported goods were taken by the first petitioner to its own godown directly from the bonded warehouse and, therefore, it was not a transaction for supply in respect of which goods and services tax (GST) would be leviable and that IGST had already been paid on the transaction even before the commencement of movement of the goods. 5. The second respondent, however, refused to release the goods on the ground of ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed. It was submitted that, therefore, considering the fact that the goods in question are perishable goods, the second respondent was not justified in not releasing the goods and calling upon the petitioner to furnish security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b). Reference was also made to sub-section (2) of section 129 of the CGST Act which provides that the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 67 shall mutatis mutandis apply for detention and seizure of goods and conveyances. Reference was made to sub-section (6) of section 67 of the Act which provides that the goods so seized under sub-section (2) shall be released on a provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be. 6.2 The attention of the court was further invited to the written submissions made by the petitioner on 29.3.2019 made to the second respondent. 6.3 Referring to the impugned order, it was pointed that the same is totally a non-reasoned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGST had already been paid on such transaction and the goods were being moved from the customs warehouse to the petitioner's own godown and it being the case of the petitioners that there was no supply, and hence, the provisions of GST Act are not applicable. The impugned order is, therefore, totally bereft of any reasoning. Reasons, it is well known, are the heart and soul of an order passed by a judicial/quasi-judicial order, without which it is difficult to pronounce one way or other as regards the validity of such order. In the absence of any reasons to support the findings given by a judicial/quasi judicial authority, it is not possible to ascertain as to how the authority came to a particular conclusion. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any reasons in support of the tax and penalty levied by the second respondent, the impugned order stands vitiated as being an unreasoned order and as such cannot be sustained. However, the matter is required to be restored to the file of the second respondent for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after duly considering the submissions advanced by the petitioners. 10. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
