9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1095X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner while giving liberty to the appellant/petitioner to work out remedy before the Appellate Authority. Relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court reads as under:- 7. Accordingly, without going into the merits and factual aspects of the matter, this Court directs the petitioner to file appeal under the provisions of the TNGST Act, 2017, as against the impugned order dated 17.03.2022. On receipt of such appeal, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 68 (3) of the Act in FORM GST MOV-06 followed by a notice GST MOV-07 under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. It was stated that about 58 bundles of Hosiery goods were being transported without invoice copies. Therefore the value of the 58 bundles of Hosiery was determined at Rs.11,60,000/- . Therefore, a penalty of Rs.11,60,000/- was proposed. 6. The appellant also gave a reply to the same dated 15.03.2022. In the reply dated 15.03.2022, the appellant has accepted the mistake. However, requested the respondent to value 56 bundles of 58 bundles at Rs.4,500 to Rs.5,000/- per bundle, while accepting the value of two bundles at Rs.20,000/- as was proposed in the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the TNGST & CGST, 2017. 7. In the reply, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such goods, in terms of Section 129(1) (a).It is submitted that the appellant is not the owner of the goods and therefore penalty that could be imposed under Section 129(1)(b) could be confined only to fifty percent of the value of the goods. Section 129(1) of the respective GST Act, 2020 reads as under:- (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 releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the appellant has an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactment. 14. That apart, it is submitted that the issue is now covered by a decision of the law settled by this Court in W.P.No.18753, 20794 & 21690 of 2022. 15. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent . 16. The petitioner claims to be a transporter who was transporting goods for a dealer from the Tiruppur District in Tamil Nadu to a recipient in Hyderabad, Telangana. The consignment of Ready-Made Textile/ Hosiery Garments were being transported by the appellant for an unknown consignor and consigneer whose name has been later given as Star Handlooms in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoices and other documents. It is in the above background the respondent State tax Officer, Intelligence, Adjudication Wing, Erode issued an order of detention under Section 129 (1) read with Section 68 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and under The Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Simultaneously, a notice in Form GST MOV-07 dated 4.3.2022 bearing reference GDR.No. 19/2021-2022 was issued to the appellant. Though in first Table to the above notice states that 58 bundles were being transported without invoices, in the subsequent table there is reference to only 33 bundles with their corresponding lorry receipt numbers. All the 33 bundles have been valued at Rs.20,000/per bundle. The notice also called upon the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be construed that the value of two of the bundles out of 58 bundles alone were Rs.20,000 and that rest of them were only between Rs. 4500 -5000. There cannot be determination of the value n a writ proceeding. 23. In our view, the order of the learned single Judge declining to interfere with the order impugned before the record requires no interference. Whether the value was Rs.4500 - 5000 is something which the appellant will have to establish only before the appellate authority under section 107 of the respective GST enactments in an appellate proceedings. If the appellant wishes to pursue the appellate remedy, the appellant will have to pay deposit 25% of the amount determined by the respondent State Tax Officer, Intelligence. This Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
