TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Prompt Decision on Goods Release, Emphasizes Fairness in Tax Confiscation Cases</h1> The court directed respondent No.2 to decide on the representation for the release of goods within one week, emphasizing procedural fairness and adherence ... Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - goods detained for the lack of genuineness of the goods in transit and for not tendering E-way bill for goods in movement - the petitioner has sent a representation dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-10) to respondent No.2, but no action has so far been taken thereon - Held that:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-10), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Issues:1. Petition for writ of mandamus to release goods under Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in trading of iron scrap, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing respondent No.2 to release goods along with a specific truck, as per Sections 129(1)(a) and 130 of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and an order dated 13.3.2019. The petitioner had purchased iron scrap and sent it through a transport company, but the goods were intercepted by respondent No.3. Subsequently, notices were issued regarding the genuineness of the goods in transit and non-tendering of the E-way bill. Respondent No.2 conducted physical verification, found an excess, and issued a notice for confiscation and penalty. Despite the petitioner depositing the tax and penalty, the goods were not released, leading to the current writ petition.The court noted that the petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent No.2 for the release of goods, but no action had been taken. After hearing the petitioner's counsel, the court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to decide on the representation within one week, in accordance with the law, by passing a speaking order and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits but emphasized the need for a timely decision by the tax authority.This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in matters involving the confiscation and release of goods under tax laws. It underscores the significance of providing an opportunity for the affected party to be heard and for the tax authority to make decisions in accordance with the law. The court's directive for a prompt decision on the representation underscores the need for expeditious resolution of disputes related to tax matters to ensure justice and fairness for all parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
