Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Aar Dee Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the notice in Form GST MOV-02 dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondent-authorities intercepted the goods & conveyance bearing No.PB13Z8987 carrying iron scrap goods outside Durga Multimetals, Village Chatarpura, Mandi Gobind Garh. Resultantly, notice dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) for confiscation of the said goods and show cause as to why the same be not confiscated under the provisions of Section 130 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act and Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and tax, penalty and other charges payable be not levied.
2. Prayer has also been made to release the vehicle and the goods which was acceded to while issuing notice of motion by the Co-ordinate Bench on 31.08.2023 and the petitioner was to deposit 25% in cash and the remaining in the shape of personal bond with surety since it has been contended that the petitioner was ready to pay the penalty and fine as per the Form GST MOV-02 dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) to that extent.
3. The exigency of the situation regarding the vehicle and the goods is o
The court cannot entertain writ petitions against show cause notices; such matters must be verified by the competent authorities.
The court held that writ petitions against show cause notices are not entertained, emphasizing the need for competent authorities to investigate the facts and circumstances of each case.
Writ courts should not interfere in disputed factual matters and must allow parties to pursue alternative remedies before tax authorities.
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.
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
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....
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
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
