2025 (7) TMI 56 - HC - GST

Confiscation order under Section 130 CGST Act set aside for violating mandatory procedural requirements and hearing opportunity

M/s Gajanand Granite Versus Office of State Tax Officer, Dehradun

The Uttarakhand HC set aside a confiscation order and penalty imposed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, finding the proceedings violated mandatory ... Confication - redemption fine - penalty - opportunity of hearing not provided to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The action complained of is not merely arbitrary, but is in the teeth of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. In that view of the matter, the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority/ Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Dehradun to redo the process from the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. Petition disposed off by way of remand. The Uttarakhand High Court, per Chief Justice G. Narendar, addressed the petitioner's challenge to the confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court noted that the entire process-including issuance of the show-cause notice, reply by the vehicle driver (unconnected to the goods), and passing of the confiscation order-was completed on the same day without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This procedure violated sub-section (4) of Section 130, which mandates that 'No order for confiscation of goods or conveyance or for imposition of penalty shall be issued without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.' Consequently, the Court held the action 'not merely arbitrary, but... in the teeth of the provisions' and set aside the confiscation and penalty order. The matter was remitted to the Competent Authority to redo the proceedings from the issuance of the show-cause notice stage. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.