Court denies interim order in challenge to CGST notices; emphasizes statutory remedies & officer's satisfaction.

The court denied the petitioner's request for an interim order to stay further proceedings challenging the notices issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court emphasized the availability of remedies within the statute and the potential disruption to the statutory scheme if courts routinely interfered with such proceedings. The court found the officer's satisfaction with the intention to evade tax based on various factors, including discrepancies in loading goods and the driver's statement. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer for a hearing and scheduled the next hearing date.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to notices under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Request for interim order to stay further proceedings.

The petitioner challenged two notices issued under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which called for an explanation regarding the proposal for confiscation of goods and related tax and penalty. The petitioner argued that the conditions specified under Section 130 did not apply in this case, emphasizing the availability of physical invoices and e-way bills as sufficient requisites during transportation. The petitioner sought interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the notices were illegal. The Senior Government Pleader countered, stating that the notices were issued based on suspicion of tax evasion, supported by the driver's statement and discrepancies in the loading of goods. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer for a hearing. The officer, after conducting the hearing, was satisfied with the intention to evade tax. Despite the petitioner's plea for an interim order, the court held that it was not a suitable case for such relief, as the statute itself provided remedies for such situations. The court highlighted the reluctance to interfere with proceedings under Section 130, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies and the potential impact on the statutory scheme if the court intervened.

The court analyzed the circumstances, including the driver's statement, discrepancies in loading goods, and lack of trading activity at the supplier's business place, which led the Proper Officer to be prima facie satisfied with the intention to evade tax. Ultimately, the court concluded that an interim order was not warranted in this case. The court emphasized the importance of not hastily exercising powers under Article 226, especially in matters involving Section 130 of the Act, to avoid interference with statutory powers. The court highlighted the significance of alternative remedies and the potential disruption to the statutory scheme if courts routinely intervened in such proceedings. The court directed the Government Pleader to file a counter affidavit or statement and scheduled the next hearing date.

---