High Court overturns CGST Act confiscation order citing natural justice violation, orders fresh hearing.

The High Court set aside the appellate authority's confiscation order under the CGST Act due to a violation of natural justice principles. The court directed a fresh hearing, emphasizing the petitioner's right to present their case fairly. The petitioner's penalty tax and fine deposits led to instructions for the authority to consider the release application and proceed lawfully. The Appellate Authority was directed to issue appropriate orders on the application and then hear the main matter, affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity. The court disposed of the petition, instructing the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent for further consideration.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by appellate authority, seeking mandamus for admission of appeal and fair hearing, detention and confiscation of goods under CGST Act, violation of principles of natural justice in appellate authority's decision.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, challenged an order by the appellate authority and sought a writ of mandamus for fair consideration of the appeal. The petitioner was transporting goods when intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer, who demanded documents under CGST Act. Despite providing the required documents, the goods were detained, leading to a representation by the consignor for release. The authorities initiated proceedings under Sections 129 and 130, ultimately issuing an ex parte confiscation order, which the petitioner appealed. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by hastily passing the confiscation order. The Additional Advocate General representing the respondents conceded that the order might not be sustainable due to lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.

The petitioner had also deposited the penalty tax and fine, prompting the court to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the application for release of goods and vehicle. The court emphasized the need for the authority to hear the petitioner on the release application and proceed in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority was instructed to pass appropriate orders on the application and then proceed to hear the main matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directives, instructing the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent on a specified date, keeping all contentions open for further consideration.

---