Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
M/s Dayco Power Transmission Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and 3 ors. - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. 296 OF 2021.
Decided On : 19-04-2024
JUDGMENT
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Heard Shri. Shrey Ashat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2020 passed by the competent authority in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act detaining the goods and the vehicle of the petitioner and imposing a demand of applicable tax and penalty equal to 100% of the tax payable on the seized goods.
3. The petitioner took the order passed by the seizing/assessing authority in appeal with no better result. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 28.12.2020.
4. The short contention of the writ petitioner is that the detained goods were being transported as part of a stock transfer. The goods were not being moved in pursuance to any sale or purchase. The goods were not liable to tax. The detention of the goods and imposition of tax and penalty were unlawful. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid ground has not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel could not establish consideration of the aforesaid objection from the impugned order passed by the appellate authority.
6. In this wake, I find that the ground raised by the petitioner merits consideration by the appellate authority in the first instance. Clearly, the appellate authority has failed to do so. Failure of the appellate authority to advert to the said objections of the petitioner, reflects non application of mind to germane issues and vitiates the impugned order passed by the appellate authority.
7. The impugned order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the appellate authority is consequently set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
The appellate authority must consider all objections raised by the petitioner regarding the nature of goods to ensure lawful detention and imposition of tax.
Section 129 forms part of the machinery provisions under the Act to check evasion of tax and a detention can be justified only if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act in relation to ....
Authorities must substantiate claims of tax evasion in goods seizure cases; mere suspicions are insufficient without concrete evidence.
For proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act, there must be intent to evade tax established; a mere technical breach does not warrant penalties.
The court will not entertain writ petitions against show cause notices, emphasizing the necessity of pursuing statutory remedies as per the relevant tax laws.
Production of rectifying documents before detention of goods negates grounds for penalty under GST rules, reaffirming procedural fairness.
Detention and seizure of goods in transit under GST requires clear evidence of contravention; mere discrepancies in documentation cannot justify such actions.
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
