TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent in detaining the goods of the Petitioner on 24.12.2019, while they were on transit from the place of the Selling Dealer in Maharashtra to the place of the Petitioner in Andhra Pradesh and levying tax and penalty of Rs. 2,84,530/- as illegal, improper and incorrect. 2) The facts, in issue, are as under: (i) The Petitioner herein is a registered Dealer under GST Act on the rolls of 2nd Respondent, doing business in manufacture of Edible Oils and Poultry Feed. (ii) In the course of business, the Petitioner purchased 313.30 quintals of Acid Oil, required in the process of manufacture by the Petitioner, from a registered GST Dealer in Maharashtra. The goods were dispatched by the vendor of the Petitioner for delivery ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that, when there is a remedy of Appeal, invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is illegal and incorrect. He further pleads that, there is no illegality in the Order passed, as there is a variation in the invoice number. 4) In reply, the counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, an Appeal would lie provided there is an order. But, in the absence of the same, no Appeal would lie. 5) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the 2nd Respondent was justified in ordering the detention of goods under Section 12(1) of CGST Act? 6) Before going further, it would be appropriate to refer to the Notice issued under Section 129 of CGST Act. In the said Notice, the reason for detention of goods, is as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spective State GST Act, should be imposed. It is stated that, though, the Petitioner brought to the notice of the authority the above Circular and also explained that the mistake was done by the Selling Dealer, and that, the same was uploaded in the GST Portal also, but, the authority refused to release the goods unless the Petitioner pays tax and penalty. Having regard to the above circumstances and since the goods detained are very much essential, the Petitioner claimed to have paid the tax and penalty to a tune of Rs. 2,84,530/- and got the goods released. 12) A reading of the Circular issued by the Government of India, dated, 14.09.2018, would make it clear that, collection of tax, in the instant case, is contrary to the Circular, fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the stocks, the inspecting authority got recorded statements from the writ petitioners to the effect that the petitioners were liable to pay tax under Section 6A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and accordingly, collected the tax as well as the penalty, which was five times that of the tax payable and the amount was collected by way of cheques. Later on, the action of the authority was challenged on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and that no notice and opportunity was given to the dealers and no assessment was also made. The Court found that the levy of penalty at five times the amount of tax was unsustainable, as it was not a case of composition of offence under ....