2026 (7) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate ORAL ORDER : The question for consideration is: whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Revenue proposes to initiate suo motu revision under Section 108 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'KGST/CGST Act'] with Mr. Puthige R. Ramesh, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, arguing for intervention on this question emphasizing the following: [a] The third petitioner is the Transporter. The second petitioner is the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. The first petitioner is the owner of goods being transported. [b] The third petitioner's vehicle is intercepted on 05.01.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oceedings under Section 108 of the KGST/CGST Act because of this petition. The learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the confiscation order under Section 130 of the KGST/CGST Act is because of the mismatch in the quantity of the goods as mentioned in the invoice and the quantity of goods as verified after interception. The Appellate Authority has fallen in error in opining that there could not have been confiscation of goods. In reply, Mr. Puthige R. Ramesh argues that the 200% penalty in terms of the confiscation order is based on the price as determined by the Authorities without reference to objective material. 4. It is obvious from the rival submissions that the dispute is over the alleged mismatch between the invoic....