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>Goods Seizure Invalidated: Authorities Must Issue Proper Notice, Conduct Fair Valuation, and Respect Procedural Safeguards</h1> <h3>M/s Srinivas Traders Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others And M/s Srinivas Traders Versus The Dy Assistant Commissioner St Ii and Others</h3> M/s Srinivas Traders Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and Others And M/s Srinivas Traders Versus The Dy Assistant Commissioner St Ii and ... The Andhra Pradesh High Court, per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, addressed multiple writ petitions challenging the seizure of the petitioner's goods in transit. The petitioner contended that the seizure notices lacked specific reasons, relying instead on a printed proforma without detailed explanation, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity for explanation. Further, the petitioner argued that the authorities failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act within seven days of seizure, required to initiate an enquiry into tax payable, and prematurely proceeded under Section 130, which was impermissible.The Court observed that no notice under Section 129 was produced; only Section 130 notices were shown. The seizure memos lacked legible reasons for seizure. Citing Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v. The Chief Election Commissioner, 1978(1) SCC 405, the Court held that 'additional reasons cannot be supplemented after the impugned order had been passed.'Accordingly, the Court directed: (i) issuance of notice under Section 129(3) within two days; (ii) completion of the valuation and tax determination process within three days thereafter, with notice and opportunity to the petitioner; (iii) release of goods as per Section 129(1); and (iv) initiation of proceedings under Section 130 only after completing the Section 129 process.The Court emphasized the need for the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to sensitize and train officers on proper procedural compliance in confiscations. The judgment is to be communicated to the Commissioner and concerned officers. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 