2019 (3) TMI 1768 - HC - GST

Court Invalidates Notice Seeking Penalties Without Compliance

RAJA RAJESWARI SALES CORPORATION Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

The court found the impugned show cause notice invalid as it sought penalties under section 130 without complying with the order under section 129 of the ... Confiscation of goods and vehicle - sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited tax and penalty under section 129 of the IGST Act, by way of ad-interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release Truck No.RJ-14-GH-3440 along with the goods contained therein. Issue Notice returnable on 10th April, 2019. Issues:1. Interpretation of sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.2. Validity of the impugned show cause notice dated 2.3.2019.3. Compliance with statutory provisions by the respondents.Analysis:1. The petitioner's advocate highlighted the procedural requirements under sections 129 and 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 129 mandates issuing a notice and providing an opportunity for a hearing before passing an order in case of goods in transit contravening the Act. It was argued that section 130 can only be invoked if there is non-compliance with the order under section 129. The impugned notice sought penalties under section 130 without initiating proceedings under section 129, which was deemed impermissible. The petitioner had already paid the tax and penalty under section 129, as per the submissions made.2. In response to the submissions, the court issued a notice returnable on 10th April, 2019. The respondents were directed to show cause why costs should not be imposed for non-compliance with statutory provisions. Acknowledging the petitioner's payment of tax and penalty under section 129, the court ordered the immediate release of the truck and its contents. However, the petitioner was instructed to file an undertaking within a week, committing to cooperate in further proceedings if the petition did not succeed.3. The court's directive for direct service was permitted in the matter. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani, focused on the correct application of sections 129 and 130 of the IGST Act, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with statutory requirements. The decision aimed to balance the interests of the petitioner and the enforcement of tax laws, emphasizing the need for proper adherence to legal procedures in cases involving goods in transit under the GST regime.