Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J., ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. - 1183 OF 2023.
Decided On : 16-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Aditya Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

The authority must have jurisdiction to impose penalties; lack of proper authority invalidates orders regarding the detention and valuation of goods.

Headnote:(A) State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129 - Writ petition seeking to quash proceedings and orders regarding the detention of goods - Goods were seized as they were not as per the declared invoice - The court emphasized the lack of authority of the respondent to impose a penalty without proper jurisdiction. (Paras 3, 5, 6)

(B) Jurisdiction - The authority must be the designated assessing and adjudicating body to deal with tax imposition - The court reiterated the requirement of due process and opportunity to be heard in such proceedings. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner transported processed 'White Red Betel' but had declared 'Dried Areca Nuts' in the invoices, leading to detention and additional notice for undervaluation of goods.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed, indicating lack of jurisdiction in the initial proceedings and required fresh consideration under the appropriate statute.

Issues: Whether the impugned order was valid in light of the authority’s jurisdiction regarding tax imposition and adequate opportunity for the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the authority lacked power to impose tax without being an assessing or adjudicating body, mandating fresh proceedings to ensure fairness.

Result: Writ petition allowed and impugned order quashed.

Table of Content
1. details of the writ petition and facts of case. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments on legality of the notice and authority. (Para 4 , 5)
3. quashing of order and directions for fresh orders. (Para 6)
4. conclusion and disposal of writ petition. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Anurag Khanna assisted by Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das along with Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

3. On 18.9.2023, Vehicle No. HR-56 C-0496 was intercepted and the petitioner was asked to submit relevant documents in relation to the product being carried in the said vehicle. Later, it was found that processed 'White Red Betel' was being transported, whereas the E-waybills and E-invoices was shown of 'Dried Areca Nuts' and value of both the seized articles were different. As a result whereof, the petitioner was subjected to notice and then an order in Form GST MOV-09 was passed.

4. Counsel for the State-respondents fairly submits that the notice in Form GST MOV-07, under Section 129 (3) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 may be treated as notice and accordingly penalty may be imposed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the notice itself may be quashed, goods may not be treated undervalued and the authority is neither the Assessing Authority nor the Adjudicating Authority to impose tax and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law and same may be quashed.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by the parties, the impugned order dated 4.10.2023 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent no.2 to pass orders afresh under Section 129 (1)(a) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document