Back
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
Jupiter Express Carrier Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. confiscation order under tax laws (Para 1) |
| 2. challenges to confiscation and arguments presented (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's directive on re-examination of connivance (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 01 GC 6192, is aggrieved by the confiscation order dated 17.04.2021 (Annexure-D) under Section 130 of the KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'KGST Act/CGST Act']/ Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 [for short, 'IGST Act']/Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 [for short, 'GST Act']. The petitioner has also called in question the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST/CGST Act.
2. Sri. Govindraya Kamath K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, is categorical that the petitioner would not pursue the petition insofar as the challenge to the statutory provisions but the petitioner's grievance as against the initiation of proceedings and the confiscation order dated 17.04.2021 under Section 130 of the KGST Act/CGST Act/ Section 20 of the IGST Act/Section 11 of the GST
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
The court confirmed that procedural irregularities in tax proceedings are best addressed through appeals, affirming the right to statutory remedies according to the CGST Act.
The petitioner must pursue appellate remedies under the CGST Act rather than a writ petition as the order of confiscation had been served properly.
Notice under Section 130 of the Act must be served in accordance with statutory requirements, failing which confiscation orders are invalid.
Point of Law - Section 68 of the GST Act which empowers the authority concerned to intercept the vehicle and the goods. The said provision of Section 68 is required to be reproduced.
Point of law: The extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing for release of the vehicles or goods, during the pendency of the confiscation, can only be sparingly exercised ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
