2018 (9) TMI 542 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 22 (Cal.) – Validity of SCN – Petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The notice for confiscation was issued to the driver of the vehicle – Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Held that:- In the facts of the present case, it appears that, the petitioner as the owner was well aware of the confiscation proceedings. The driver of the vehicle was given notice to the confiscation proceedings. He participated in such confiscation proceedings – it cannot be said that, the petitioner was without any notice of the confiscation proceedings. The order emanating out of the confiscation proceedings has been assailed by the parties in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
passed for confiscation, therefore, is without any basis. He refers to Section 130(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in support of his contention. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that, the present writ petition is the third one in respect of the self‐same confiscation proceedings. The order in original has since been passed on May 18, 2018 on the basis of the notice for confiscation. The petitioner is aware of the confiscation proceedings as will appear from the averments made in the writ petition. The so‐called Courier had preferred an appeal against the order in original. Two writ petitions have since been filed which did not succeed. I have considered the rival conte
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =