2019 (1) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as 'the CGST Act' for short), the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance and demand of tax, fine and penalty dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-A2) issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act and the rectification order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure-A3) issued under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017. 3. The petitioner is a transporter represented by its Proprietor and was transporting certain goods as detailed in the order of confiscation. The said conveyance bearing registration No.KA-07-A-8570 was intercepted by the officers of the Revenue Department on 04.08.2018 at 6.55 a.m., near Nelamangala Toll Gate, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the documents tendered by the driver of the vehicle were scrutinized, physical verification of the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been passed after verification of the documents that were made available by the driver of the conveyance and inspection of goods has been carried out in the presence of the driver and one Sri.D.H.Naik, who is incharge of petitioner's office at Bengaluru. 6. Learned HCGP would draw the attention of this Court to Annexure-A1 to the writ petition-the order of Demand of Tax and Penalty dated 22.08.2018. The Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), South Zone, Bengaluru, who is the Authority, has passed the order and categorically observed as follows:- "Further, as per the request of the transporter, personal hearing was given through and endorsement dated 16.08.2018 on 17.08.2018. In response, Sri. Mahendra Jain, S/o Rajatmal, Proprietor o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed counsel for the petitioner would also endeavor to contend that none of the consignees have been heard in the matter. 10. The letter marked at Annexure-H dated 23.08.2018, itself is an answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the letter, nowhere it is stated that the consignee requests for hearing and no material is placed on record to demonstrate the same. Apart from furnishing the letters of the consignees, there are no other details furnished by them. Further, the letter allegedly conveying the confirmation of the consignee to pay the due also does not inspire confidence in this Court. Infact the enclosures to the Annexure at page Nos.171, 173, 175 and 176, appears to be written in the same pen and....