2021 (12) TMI 270 - HC - GST

Court instructs independent decision on petitioner's representation, emphasizes procedural fairness for tax dispute resolution.

E.A Overseas Through Its Authorized Person Mr. Ekhlaque Anvar Ali Ahmad Versus The State Of Gujarat

The court directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation independently of the pending petition, emphasizing procedural fairness and ... Confiscation of goods or conveyance - levy of penalty under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - confiscation of the goods under Section 130 CGST Act without resorting to Section 129 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Issue Notice, returnable 09.12.2021. Learned AGP, Ms.Maithili Mehta waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent-State. She may also take necessary instructions before 09.12.2021. The representation of the petitioner shall be decided without, in any manner, being influenced by the pendency of this petition on or before 04.12.2021. Issues:Petitioner aggrieved by notice for confiscation of goods and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the CGST Act. Question of consignee liability for tax evasion by cosigner. Challenge to proposed confiscation without resorting to Section 129 of the CGST Act.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in the business of Agro Commodities, is the consignee of goods detained for tax evasion by the cosigner, Sabira Company. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, ordered goods to be transported from Gujarat to New Delhi. The petitioner challenges the proposed confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act, arguing that the consignee cannot be held liable for the alleged tax evasion by the cosigner. The petitioner seeks to quash the order/notice dated 13.10.2021 and requests the release of detained goods pending the petition's disposal.The petitioner's grievance includes the delay in deciding their representation made on 19.10.2021. The court issues notice returnable by 09.12.2021, with the AGP waiving service for the respondent-State. The court directs the respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation by 04.12.2021, independent of the petition's pendency. Additionally, direct service through speed post and e-mode is permitted for effective communication.This judgment highlights the legal dispute surrounding the liability of a consignee for tax evasion by the cosigner, as well as the procedural aspect of confiscation under the CGST Act. The court's directive for timely decision on the petitioner's representation underscores the importance of procedural fairness and efficient resolution of grievances in taxation matters.