TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panangadu by Ext. P2 to Ext. P2(c) proceedings. The reason stated in the said proceedings is that no E-way bill accompanied the goods in transit. Ext. P2(c) notice under Section 129(3) of the Central Good and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST Act' for short) further provides that no letter of undertaking is endorsed in the tax invoice as required under Rule 46 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST Rules'). 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reply was given and Ext. P3 E-way bill was produced before the respondents with an explanation that it was on account of the triple lock down imposed in the area on the relevant date and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner as provided under Section 130(i) to (v), the proceedings under Section 130 cannot be taken against the petitioner. It is further contended that after service of Ext. P5 order on 31.05.2021, the petitioner was immediately served with Ext. P6 notice on 11.06.2021 without giving the petitioner an opportunity to raise a challenge against Ext. P5. 4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 2nd respondent stating that Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act is a comprehensive code in itself prescribing the procedure for detention, seizure and release of goods. Section 130 provides for confiscation of goods or conveyance and for levy of penalty. It is submitted that in the instant case the vehicle and the articles were detained on 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s taxable at 5% (CGST +SGST)." 6. It is submitted that the explanation of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory since E-way bill itself had not been generated at the time of detention of the vehicle and that the petitioner had taken the vehicle away from Panangad to Cochin Port and goods were exported without the permission of the respondents and without proper authority of law. It is submitted that it was because the petitioner did not respond to Ext. P5 that further notice was issued under Section 130 to the petitioner. It is further contended that Ext. P5 is an appealable order and that the petitioner could not have approached this Court without availing the statutory appellate remedy. 7. The learned Government Pleader place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er live, fresh or chilled. 9. The learned Government Pleader places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and others [(2015) 7 SCC 126] to contend that since the GST Act is aligned with the Customs Tariff Act which in turn is aligned with HSN, it is submitted that where a HSN Code number is indicated against an item, such entries shall be interpreted in the light of the entries in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also as per the judgments applicable to the responding entries in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is submitted that each product is required to be considered in the context of the HSN Code and the liability to tax thereon. 10. The decision of a Division Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....than determine whether or not on a literal reading of the statutory provisions, together with the circulars issued from time to time, there has been a breach occasioned thereof. Any person aggrieved by the order of the proper officer must necessarily approach the appellate authority before which an appeal against the adjudication order under Section 129(3) of the Act is maintainable. In the instant case too, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the appellate authority under the Act against the finding of the proper officer." 12. The learned Government Pleader would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in State of H.P and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Another [(2005)6 SCC 499], in support of the contention that where....