Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, SHUBHA MEHTA
KPM Enterprises, Through Its Sole Proprietor Kamla Prasad Maurya, Son Of Shri Ram Palak – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Circle-F, Jaipur-Iii, Commercial Tax Department, Government Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Ms. Anjali Jha Manish and Mr. Anmol Arya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ayush Singh & Mr. Akshay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions challenging the show cause notice dated 02.10.2022 and the validity of the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondents under Section 130 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) confiscating the goods and conveyance of the petitioner in transit.
3. The petitioner alleges that it had purchased the goods i.e. Areca nuts (betel nuts) from Chilur in Karnataka and the same were being transported to Delhi. The said goods during transit were intercepted, detained and finally confiscated vide impugned order dated 02.11.2022.
4. The submission is that the aforesaid order is without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which exclusively deal with the detention and seizure of the goods in transit and provides for a complete mechanism thereof, have not been followed and straightway the order of confiscation has
The court emphasized that disputed questions of fact and law should be adjudicated in appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the order of confiscation was open to appeal under Section 107 of the ....
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
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 ....
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the procedural provisions under Section 129 before invoking the order of confiscation under Section 130 of the SGST Act, ....
Under Section 15 of the Act, the value of the supply of goods would be the transaction value and a transaction value would be the price that is paid or payable for the supply of goods.Q
The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of proceedings for detention of goods under Section 129 and confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST/APGST Act, as expl....
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.
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
