2019 (12) TMI 839 - HC - GST

High Court directs hearing before penalty imposition under GST Act, stresses due process

M/s. FESTOON PROPS AND RENTALS LLP Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (APPEALS), UNION BANK OF INDIA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT

The High Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's objection and conduct a hearing before finalizing penalty proceedings under ... Release of seized goods alongwith vehicle - direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 objection and to hear the petitioner before finalising the proposal for imposition of penalty against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The writ petition disposed off with a direction to the 1st respondent, before whom Ext.P10 objection has been filed by the petitioner, to consider the objection of the petitioner and also hear the petitioner before finalising the penalty proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act. Issues:1. Challenge to determination order under Section 129 of the SGST Act2. Objection to proposal for penalty under Section 130 of the GST ActAnalysis:1. The petitioner challenged the Ext.P8 determination order under Section 129 of the SGST Act, stating that goods and the vehicle were released after furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 objection before the 1st respondent, objecting to the proposal for penalty under Section 130 of the GST Act. The petitioner sought a direction for the 1st respondent to consider the objection and hear the petitioner before finalizing the penalty imposition. The High Court, after hearing both parties, directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's objection and conduct a hearing before finalizing the penalty proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act. The Court explicitly stated that no recovery steps, including encashment of the bank guarantee, should be pursued against the petitioner until the 1st respondent passes orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 1st respondent for further action.2. The judgment focused on ensuring due process by directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's objection and provide an opportunity for a hearing before proceeding with penalty imposition under Section 130 of the GST Act. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner a fair chance to present their case and be heard before any penalty actions were finalized. By issuing this direction, the High Court aimed to uphold principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the penalty proceedings. The order also aimed to prevent any premature or unjust enforcement actions against the petitioner before proper consideration and a hearing had taken place. The judgment highlighted the significance of following legal procedures and giving parties the opportunity to defend their position effectively in matters concerning tax penalties under the GST Act.