https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=14785 Confiscation and penalty orders based solely on the vehicle driver's reply, issued the same day as interception and without affording the consignor an opportunity of hearing, violate Section 130(4) of the CGST Act. The driver lacked authority to represent the consignor; the proceedings were arbitrary and procedurally defective. The court set aside the confiscation and penalty orders and remitted the matter to the competent officer to recommence proceedings from the show cause notice stage, directing compliance with the statutory hearing requirement. en-us Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:40:55 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:40:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=14785 Confiscation and penalty orders based solely on the vehicle driver's reply, issued the same day as interception and without affording the consignor an opportunity of hearing, violate Section 130(4) of the CGST Act. The driver lacked authority to represent the consignor; the proceedings were arbitrary and procedurally defective. The court set aside the confiscation and penalty orders and remitted the matter to the competent officer to recommence proceedings from the show cause notice stage, directing compliance with the statutory hearing requirement. Articles Goods and Services Tax - GST Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:40:55 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=14785