2024 (12) TMI 1124 - HC - GST

Penalty order under GST MOV-07 set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after seven-day notice breached

HC set aside the penalty order dated 05.11.2024 under GST MOV-07 and remanded the matter to the fourth respondent for fresh adjudication after affording ... Violation of principles of natural justice - mandated notice period under Form GST MOV-07 - remand for fresh adjudication after opportunity of hearing - maintainability of writ against seizure/confiscation ordersMandated notice period under Form GST MOV-07 - violation of principles of natural justice - Whether the confirmation of penalty was vitiated by passing the order within the seven-day period prescribed by Form GST MOV-07 and thereby violated principles of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the show cause notice dated 29.10.2024 invoked the seven-day response period stipulated in Form GST MOV-07 and that the penalty order dated 05.11.2024 was passed within that statutory period. The petitioner had contended that personal hearing notices were issued before the expiry of the seven-day period, thereby foreclosing the time statutorily available to respond. The Court held that the premature proceeding amounted to a clear procedural breach under the statute and, concomitantly, to a violation of principles of natural justice because the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to make its case before confirmation of the penalty. The Court therefore treated the confirmation as vitiated by procedural unfairness and lack of requisite opportunity to the petitioner. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Confirmation of the penalty was set aside as being vitiated by breach of the seven-day notice period under Form GST MOV-07 and by denial of adequate opportunity, contrary to principles of natural justice.Remand for fresh adjudication after opportunity of hearing - Appropriate remedy to be granted after finding of procedural and natural justice violations. - HELD THAT: - Having found procedural infirmity and denial of fair opportunity, the Court refrained from adjudicating the merits of the seizure/confiscation or the quantum of penalty. Instead, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 and remanded the matter to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration. The remand was directed to be in accordance with law, requiring that the petitioner be given due opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to make out its case before any fresh order is passed. The Court thereby preserved the respondent's statutory forum while ensuring compliance with procedural fairness. [Paras 9, 10]Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to the 4th respondent for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; penalty order dated 05.11.2024 set aside and matter remanded for fresh hearing in accordance with law; no order as to costs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside the penalty order issued to a petitioner in a case involving seizure of goods during transportation. The court found a procedural violation and lack of natural justice in the case, remanding it back to the respondent for proper hearing. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.