2020 (1) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):- " 18(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the petitioners pursuant to Order Reference No.ZA2407190000680 dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure-G) and also Notice in Form GST MOV07 dated 23.06.2019 (Annexure-E); (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside Order Reference No.ZA2407190000680 dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure-G) passed by the 2nd respondent herein with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applicant located at Vatva, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the writ applicant that this being an intra state branch transfer (in the nature of transfer of goods from one Unit of a registered person to another), there was no obligation on the writ applicant to discharge any GST liability. However, it seems that while the goods were in transit, the mobile squad of the respondent detained the conveyance along with the goods on 23.06.2019 and detention order was issued in the form GST MOV06 dated 23.06.2019 on the ground that Part-B of the e-way bill was not generated. 3.2 It is not in dispute that the writ applicant immediately deposited an amount of Rs. 9,25,200/- with the respondent no.2 herein. On deposit of such amount, the goods and the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the impugned order in Form GST MOV-07 dated 02.07.2019 is sustainable in law? 6. The facts of this case are plain and simple. This is a case of gross violation of the principles of natural justice. When the writ-applicant was asked to remain present on 08.07.2019 for the purpose of personal hearing, we fail to understand how the adjudication could have been concluded and an order could have been passed on 02.07.2019 i.e. before the scheduled date of hearing. This is suggestive of the fact that the reply of the writ-applicant in writing dated 08.07.2019 was also not taken into consideration. 7. To meet with the aforenoted situation, Mr.Soaham Joshi, the learne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which the respondent no.2 has proceeded to pass the final order under Section 129(3) of the Act. There is no doubt in our mind that the writ-applicant was not given any opportunity of hearing before concluding the proceedings for the purpose of Section 129(3) of the Act. To put it in another words, the case on hand is one of violation of sub-clause 4 of Section 129 of the Act, 2017. It provides that no tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section 3 without giving a person concerned an opportunity of being heard. The opportunity which the statute is talking about has to be meaningful opportunity and not just an eye wash. 10. In such circumstances referred to above, we are left with no other option, but to quash and set ....