TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 quashes confiscation order under GST Act due to lack of due process</h1> <h3>M/s Lakshay Logistics Versus State of Gujarat</h3> M/s Lakshay Logistics Versus State of Gujarat - TMI Issues:Challenge to detention order under GST Act - Correctness of detention order, confiscation notice, and order of confiscation - Failure to serve notice to the owner of the conveyance - Violation of Section 130(4) of the GST Act.Analysis:The petition challenged the detention order, confiscation notice, and order of confiscation under the GST Act. The petitioner, a logistics firm, had its vehicle detained due to discrepancies while transporting goods for another entity. One argument raised was the lack of notice to the petitioner before the confiscation order was issued. The court requested the Assistant Government Pleader to provide clarification on this matter.The court examined the notice served, which was addressed to a different entity involved in the transportation, not the petitioner. It was noted that the order of confiscation affected not only the goods but also the conveyance. The crucial issue was whether the transporter or the owner of the conveyance had been served with the notice, as required by Section 130(4) of the GST Act. The court found that the owner of the conveyance had not been given an opportunity to be heard, rendering the confiscation order in violation of the Act.Section 130 of the GST Act mandates giving an opportunity of being heard to both the owner of the goods and the owner of the conveyance before issuing an order of confiscation. Since the owner of the conveyance was not afforded this opportunity, the confiscation order was deemed invalid. The court held that the order of confiscation could not be sustained due to the lack of due process, leading to serious civil and financial consequences.Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the order of confiscation was quashed. The matter was remanded to the competent authority to issue a fresh order following proper legal procedures and affording all concerned parties the opportunity to be heard. The court clarified that the decision did not address the validity of the notice or detention order, allowing the petitioner to raise objections in response to the show cause notice while emphasizing the need for cooperation in the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
