TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 574
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Goods and Service Tax Act, ('the GST Act' for short). In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the business of Iron and steel ingots, and on 22.9.2020 it had raised two invoices bearing Nos.451 and 452 on a consignee in Kanjikode, for the supply of 20080 Kgs and 19820 Kgs respectively of MS Billets. It had also raised e-way bills to cover the transportation of the said consignment, at 4:14 PM and 4:17 PM respectively on 22.9.2020, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P2(a) documents produced along with the writ petition. Although the e-way bills were raised around 4:00 PM on 22.09.2020, when the petitioner contacted the transporter for obtaining vehicles for transportation of the goods to Kanjikode,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was an application of mind by the 1st respondent, through a consideration of the explanation/objections raised by the petitioner, while passing the orders impugned in the writ petition. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent pursuant to the directions issued from this Court, wherein, it is stated that the respondent had tracked the movement of the vehicles used by the petitioner for transportation of the consignments covered by invoice numbers 451 and 452 as aforementioned. The details of the vehicles gathered from the automatic number plate recorder cameras installed at Walayar showed that the vehicles had passed through the check post towards Coimbatore on the evening of 22.9.2020 and had thereafter once again crosse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from the perusal of Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders that are impugned in the writ petition that, while it may be a fact that the drivers of the vehicle and the manager of the petitioner were heard, in the sense that statements were taken from them on 23.09.2020, the impugned orders passed do not reflect a consideration of the objections/ explanation given by the said person in response to the notices issued to them in Form GST MOV-10 ( Exts.P3 and P3(a)). In my view, when a notice proposing confiscation is issued to an assessee, and an opportunity of he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute that the reasons that weighed with the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned orders of confiscation were not enclosed with the said orders, I am of the view that Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders have to be quashed on the ground that they do not reflect an application of mind by the adjudicating authority on the objection/ explanation of the assessee against the proposal for confiscation. As is well settled in law, the absence of reasons by an adjudicating authority in the order passed by him would suggest a non application of mind by the adjudicating authority and the presumption to be drawn by the reviewing court is that the adjudicating authority did not have any reason to give. In reaching the said conclusion, I am guided by the ....