2025 (1) TMI 214 - HC - GST

Madras HC Closes Petition on CGST Act Penalty for Unauthorized Unloading; Personal Hearing Set for December 2024.

Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory S.K. Ravichandran Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer, Assistance Commissioner (ST), Chennai

The Madras HC addressed a petition challenging a penalty under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act for unloading goods at an unauthorized location without ... Levy of penalty under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act - penalty based on the interception of goods, which were found to be unloaded at an unauthorized location without proper documentation - It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.11.2024 while filing the reply they had sought for a personal hearing, however, no personal hearing was granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner would appear for personal hearing at 18.12.2024 at 11.00 a.m. Orders would be passed afresh after considering the submission of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods may be provisionally released. It is open to the petitioner to make such request before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. If any such request is made the same would also be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law. Petition closed. In the case before the Madras High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, the petitioner challenged an order dated 09.11.2024, which imposed a penalty of Rs.6,18,656/- under Section 129(1)A of the CGST Act, following the issuance of GST MOV 07. The penalty was based on the interception of goods, which were found to be unloaded at an unauthorized location without proper documentation.The petitioner argued that the goods, originally dispatched from Havells India in Rajasthan to Gayathri Consultants in Tamil Nadu, were temporarily unloaded at Sembiam Road, Kathirvedu, to access other goods belonging to Ashok Leyland. The petitioner claimed that the lack of documentation for this movement was unintentional. The petitioner also contended that a personal hearing was requested but not granted before the impugned order was passed.The respondent's counsel agreed to provide a personal hearing and reconsider the case. Consequently, the writ petition was closed, with instructions for the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 18.12.2024. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the petitioner could request provisional release of the goods, which would be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with the law. There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.