TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Vagharol, Taluka Dantiwada. It appears that the person in charge of the conveyance was not in a position to produce the mandatory documents in the nature of invoice and e-way bill. 4. Vide an order dated 6.8.2019 issued in Form GST MOV-02, the person in charge of the conveyance was directed to station the conveyance carrying goods at Vagharol at his risk and responsibility. Thereafter, a notice dated 21.8.2019 came to be issued in Form GST MOV-10 for confiscation of the goods or conveyance and levy of penalty under section 130 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Act') read with the relevant provisions of other related statutes. In terms of the said notice, the petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on 28.8.2019 at 11 a.m. Thereafter, without waiting for the petitioner to appear before him, the second respondent vide order dated 24.8.2019 passed an order of confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-11 computing the tax, penalty, fine in lieu of confiscation of goods and fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nveyance be released, such fact does not absolve the second respondent from granting an opportunity of hearing to him before passing the order under section 130 of the CGST Act. 8. Section 130 of the CGST Act provides for confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty. Sub-section (4) thereof provides 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. In the present case, on a perusal of the documents annexed along with the petition it appears that pursuant to the notice dated 21.8.2019 issued by the respondent, the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 24.8.2019 and showed willingness to pay the amount of tax and penalty for the purpose of securing release of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the second respondent, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 130 of the CGST Act, has proceeded to pass the impugned order on 24.8.2019. It appears that merely because the petitioner appeared before the respondent and showed willingness to pay the tax and penalty for the purpose of securing re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax; or (ii) does not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax under this Act; or (iii) supplies any goods liable to tax under this Act without having applied for registration; or (iv) contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax; or (v) uses any conveyance as a means of transport for carriage of goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the conveyance, then, all such goods or conveyances shall be liable to confiscation and the person shall be liable to penalty under section 122. 12. Thus, in terms of clauses (i) and (iv) of sub-section (1) section 130 of the CGST Act, the goods can be confiscated provided that the person supplies or receives goods in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of tax; or contravenes any provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of sub-section (1) of section 130 of the CGST Act is attracted in the present case; and as to why the officer adjudging it has come to the conclusion that there is contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of tax. 14. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that fine determined in lieu of confiscation of goods is equal to the market value of the goods viz. Rs. 6,81,556/-. Reference may therefore be made to sub-section (2) of section 130 of the CGST Act, which reads thus: "(2) Whenever confiscation of any goods or conveyance is authorised by the Act, the officer adjudging it shall give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the said officer thinks fit: PROVIDED that such fine leviable shall not exceed the market value of the goods confiscated, less the tax chargeable thereon. PROVIDED FURTHER that the aggregate of such fine and penalty leviable shall not be less than the amount of penalty leviable under sub-section (1) of section 129. PROVIDED ALSO that where any such conveyance is used for the carriage of the goods or passengers for hire, the owner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decisionmaking process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and non-speaking order, the Tribunal had upheld the order passed by Commissioner by applying the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in TISCO Ltd., without recording any findings of fact. The court held that it is not sufficient in a judgment to give conclusions alone but it is necessary to give reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at. The court, set aside the order of the Tribunal as the findings recorded by the Tribunal were cryptic and non-speaking, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for taking a fresh decision by a speaking order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to both the parties. 19. In State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, 2004 (164) ELT 137 (SC), the Supreme Court was considering a case where the High Court had dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons. The court held that reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. The court furth....