TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting an opportunity of being heard in this respect as provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 129 of the said Act. In the present case, no such steps were taken. The State authority straightway passed the order dated 25.10.2018 which is titled as Order of Demand of Tax and Penalty . This order thus clearly breaches the requirement of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 129 of the said Act - In view of such facts despite availability of appellate remedy, present petition should be entertained. The said order is, therefore, quashed. In fact of the case, since the petitioner has already deposited the amount indicated in the said order dated 25.10.2018 and the goods along with the transport vehicle are already released - petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 10.59 lakhs (rounded off). On such purchase according to the petitioner IGST of ₹ 1.90 lakhs (rounded off) was paid. Tax invoice to this effect was also generated. The seller had also generated e- Way bill dated 06.10.2018 for transport of the goods. According to the petitioner, along with all legal documents the consignment was being transported on 15.10.2018 when the respondents intercepted the transport vehicle, detained the vehicle and seized the goods. According to the petitioner, such movement of goods was pursuant to the sale in favour of respondent No.6. The official respondents thus did not have authority to seize the goods or detain the vehicle. 4. On 25.10.2018 the official respondents raised a bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tifiable grounds for imposing the penalty, is discretionary and cannot be decided without involvement of the petitioner. 8. Whenever the movement of goods is prima facie found to be without proper documents or payment of legal taxes, under the GST Act the State authorities undoubtedly have the power to seize the goods, release of which would be subject to fulfillment of conditions which may be imposed by the authority in order to secure the interest of revenue. However, demand of full tax with maximum imposable penalty without hearing the dealer, by way of a pre-condition to release the goods is not within the purview of the powers of the State authority. Reference in this respect can be made to Section 68 and Section 129 of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertains to detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit and reads as under: 129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,- (a) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one hundred per cent of the tax payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard. (5) On payment of amount referred in subsection (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. (6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section (1) within seven days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of section 130: Provided that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazardous in nature or are likely to depreciate in value with passage of time, the said period of seven days may be reduced by the proper officer. 11. Under sub-section (1) of Section 129 thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle would be released or upon furnishing security in terms of clause (c), has to be after a notice to the person concerned and granting an opportunity of being heard in this respect as provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 129 of the said Act. In the present case, no such steps were taken. The State authority straightway passed the order dated 25.10.2018 which is titled as Order of Demand of Tax and Penalty . This order thus clearly breaches the requirement of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 129 of the said Act. In view of such facts despite availability of appellate remedy, present petition should be entertained. The said order is, therefore, quashed. 14. In fact of the case, since the petitioner has already depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
