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>Vehicle Detention Dispute: CGST Act Section 107 Provides Clear Path for Appeal and Online Access to Statutory Remedy</h1> <h3>M/s. L.D. Goyal Steels Private Ltd. Versus Union of India, through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, CGST & C. Ex. Division, Ramgarh, The Inspector, CGST & C. Ex. Division, Ramgarh</h3> M/s. L.D. Goyal Steels Private Ltd. Versus Union of India, through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, CGST & C. Ex. ... Issues:Detention of petitioner's vehicle under Section 129 of the CGST Act and Rules framed thereunder, challenge to the detention order, lack of opportunity of hearing, refund of amount paid under protest, communication of adjudication order, alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act.Detention of Vehicle:The petitioner's vehicle was detained by the Respondent-Central Tax Authorities under Section 129 of the CGST Act and Rules. The vehicle was released upon the deposit of the entire tax and penalty amount. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court challenging the detention order and seeking quashing of the order and refund of the amount paid under protest.Lack of Opportunity of Hearing:The petitioner contended that the proceedings were concluded without providing an opportunity of hearing, despite making payments under protest. The petitioner argued that the respondents should have allowed a hearing to establish the genuineness of the transaction and consider the documents presented by the truck driver, which were allegedly disregarded by the Respondent no. 3.Communication of Adjudication Order:The petitioner claimed that no adjudication order was communicated to them following the issuance of FORM GST MOV-07 on 10th July, 2020. The lack of communication of the adjudication order was a ground for challenging the proceedings initiated by the Respondent-Central Tax Authorities.Alternative Remedy of Appeal:The respondents contended that the entire proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. They also highlighted the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which the petitioner had not availed. The respondents emphasized that the petitioner should utilize the appellate authority for redressal.Court's Decision:The High Court allowed the petitioner the liberty to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order passed under FORM GST MOV-09 on 29th July, 2020. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Division, Ramgarh, was directed to provide the petitioner with GSTIN No. and password for online appeal filing. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case and disposed of the writ petition while emphasizing the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
