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 orders, releases goods, emphasizes right to be heard.</h1> <h3>A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others.</h3> A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. - [2022] 96 G S.T.R. 154 (Uttarakhand) Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act and Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules.2. Declaration regarding the non-mandatory nature of tax deposit under Section 129 of the CGST Act.3. Challenge to the show-cause notice dated 01.04.2021 under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act.4. Challenge to the legality of orders under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act.5. Challenge to the detention order dated 01.04.2021 for detaining the petitioner’s trucks.6. Challenge to the rectification/withdrawal orders dated 23.04.2021 under Rule 142(7) of the CGST/SGST Rules.7. Challenge to the order dated 17.04.2021 and subsequent orders under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act and Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules:The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 129 and Rule 140 on the grounds of being arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The court examined the provisions and found that the classification under Article 14 must be founded on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The court held that the provisions were not arbitrary or unreasonable and did not violate the mentioned Articles. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the challenger to show clear transgression of constitutional principles, which the petitioner failed to do.2. Declaration Regarding Non-Mandatory Nature of Tax Deposit under Section 129 of the CGST Act:The petitioner sought a declaration that Section 129 does not mandate the deposit of tax again once it is already paid. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the procedural aspects and the compliance requirements under the CGST/SGST Act.3. Challenge to the Show-Cause Notice Dated 01.04.2021:The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act. The court noted that the show-cause notice was issued due to the expiration of the e-Way bills. The petitioner’s representatives submitted a detailed reply, but the office refused to accept it, leading to further complications.4. Challenge to the Legality of Orders under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act:The petitioner challenged the legality of the orders passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act. The court found that the orders were issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, which is a requirement under Section 130(4) of the Act. The court held that the orders were not passed in accordance with law and were liable to be quashed.5. Challenge to the Detention Order Dated 01.04.2021:The petitioner challenged the detention order for detaining the trucks. The court noted that the trucks were detained despite there being no discrepancy found during the physical verification of the goods. The court found the detention orders to be unjustified and ordered the release of the vehicles and goods upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a bank guarantee.6. Challenge to the Rectification/Withdrawal Orders Dated 23.04.2021:The petitioner challenged the rectification/withdrawal orders issued under Rule 142(7) of the CGST/SGST Rules. The court did not specifically address this issue in detail but focused on the procedural irregularities and the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.7. Challenge to the Order Dated 17.04.2021 and Subsequent Orders under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act:The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.04.2021 and subsequent orders issued under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act. The court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before passing the confiscation orders. The court quashed the orders dated 23.04.2021 and directed the release of the vehicles and goods upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a bank guarantee.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions partly, quashing the impugned orders dated 23.04.2021, and directed the release of the vehicles and goods upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a bank guarantee. The court clarified that the respondents may proceed further in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
