TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017) was served on the consignor, Petro Chemicals, for alleged tax evasion. 3. The Petitioner challenged the detention, and the confiscation order issued under the Act of 2017 by filing W.P.(C) No. 2082 of 2025 on 17 January 2025. The Petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that he had no knowledge or involvement in the alleged tax evasion and the vehicle was hired only to transport goods. He asserted that no notice or copy of the detention and confiscation orders pertaining to the vehicle was served on him. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, contending that the Petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands by misrepresenting facts. It was stated that, upon contacting the driver of the truck, it was found that no documents have been entrusted to him. The order of confiscation dated 21 December 2024 was duly received by the Petitioner. It was contended that on merits, the Petitioner does not have a good case. It was specifically asserted by the Respondents that there were repeated communications with the Petitioner through WhatsApp. 5. The learned Single Judge noted the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner has asserted that his vehicle continues to be in the custody of the Respondents and he is losing revenue. It was specifically stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Commissioner (Law) before the learned Single Judge that the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 stood concluded against the Petitioner by order dated 10 January 2025. This would suggest that the vehicle of the Petitioner is now confiscated. 10. Even assuming that the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 against the Petitioners were not concluded, we had asked the learned Government Pleader to take instructions whether the Petitioner could be granted a hearing, and thereafter, the authority could pass a reasoned order, at least on the application for provisional release. After granting one week to take instructions, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that instructions have been received to contest the matter, thereby denying the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing. As regards the application for provisional release, the Respondents contended that since the proceedings under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gers for hire, the owner of the conveyance shall be given an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance a fine equal to the tax payable on the goods being transported thereon. [* * *] (4) 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. (5) Where any goods or conveyance are confiscated under this Act, the title of such goods or conveyance shall thereupon vest in the Government. (6) The proper officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the things confiscated and every officer of Police, on the requisition of such proper officer, shall assist him in taking and holding such possession. (7) The proper officer may, after satisfying himself that the confiscated goods or conveyance are not required in any other proceedings under this Act and after giving reasonable time not exceeding three months to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, dispose of such goods or conveyance and deposit the sale proceeds thereof with the Government. This clause provides for provisions relating to confiscation of goods or conveyances. This clause also provides fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1). (3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved." *** The Petitioner admittedly is the owner of the vehicle (conveyance). The statute prescribes the mode of notice. The notice stated to have been sent to the Petitioner/owner through WhatsApp is not a mode of service contemplated under Section 169 of the Act of 2017. While such a practice was permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it no longer constitutes a valid mode of issuing notice under the provisions of the Act of 2017, and there is no debate regarding the same. The notice served on the Petitioner before holding that the proceedings under Section 130 are concluded against the Petitioner is not placed on record. There is, therefore, a serious lacuna in the procedure adopted by the Respondents as far as confiscation of the Petitioner's vehicle is concerned. The Petitioner has consiste....