9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21 filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein. The respondent nos.1 and 2 had challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 dated 15th September, 2021 confirming the order of the adjudicating authority dated 6th May, 2021 in levying tax of Rs. 26,45,299/- and penalty of Rs. 37,84,829 on the alleged ground that the goods were attempted to be offloaded in the State of West Bengal, though the goods were consigned to the State of Assam. The goods have been detained along with the vehicle since March, 2021 since the appellant could not avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 112 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal as there is no forum as on date the writ petition was filed chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 6. It is not disputed by the revenue that as on date there is no Appellate Tribunal available for the respondent nos.1 and 2 to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 15th September, 2021. Therefore, the writ petition was rightly entertained by the learned Single Bench. With regard to the direction issued by the writ Court for release of the goods and the vehicle, it is an order in exercise of discretion by the learned writ Court. Unless and until the exercise of discretion is absolutely unreasonable and arbitrary, as an Appellate Court, seldom such directions are interfered with. In the instant case, the first respondent does not admit any tax liability as their case is that the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the exercise of discretion is neither improper or irrational for us to interfere. The interest of revenue stands sufficiently safeguarded as 30% of the disputed tax has been collected by the department. This Court expressed a concern that the product being pan masala and vehicle along with the goods having been detained for almost a year, the same would be unfit for consumption. This factual position is admitted by the first respondent. 11. The Court also expressed a concern that the first respondent, the consignee / owner of the goods, if is allowed to take the goods to the State of Assam, there may be a likelihood that the goods may be sold in the open market, which would be harmful. Taking note of the concern expressed by the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent nos.1 and 2 to execute a bond in the form as approved by the appellant authorities securing the interest of the revenue and also a letter of undertaking to produce the vehicle-in-question as and when required. Needless to state that the respondent nos.1 and 2 shall cooperate in the proceedings that may be initiated by the appellant department. The vehicle along with the goods shall be released within three days from the date on which the above conditions are complied with along with the specific condition that the goods shall be sent back to the State of Uttar Pradesh to the consignor. 17. Since the respondent nos.1 and 2 have already deposited the 20% of the disputed tax, upon execution of the bond and the undertaking as mentioned abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
