2019 (1) TMI 678 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention order – non-compliance of the mandate under the provisions of Section 129(4) of the Act – Held that:- From a plain reading of the order, it is apparent that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that no opportunity has been afforded under Section 129 (4) of the CGST Act stands falsified – it is apparent that the alleged owners have waived the right of hearing and have consented, levy of tax and penalty and have undertaken to pay as per the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
–
The Proper Officer realizing the lacuna, has proceeded to pass the rectification order after taking into consideration the objections and hence, the same is nothing but an attempt by the Proper Officer to ensure that the objections filed and contention raised by the petitioner are considered in the proper perspective and in the manner required under the Act. Hence, no malafides can be attributed to the same – t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
T Act, 2017. 3. The petitioner is a transporter represented by its Proprietor and was transporting certain goods as detailed in the order of confiscation. The said conveyance bearing registration No.KA-07-A-8570 was intercepted by the officers of the Revenue Department on 04.08.2018 at 6.55 a.m., near Nelamangala Toll Gate, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the documents tendered by the driver of the vehicle were scrutinized, physical verification of the goods with reference to the documents furnished ensued and thereafter report has been drawn. After a verification of the goods in the conveyance, it was found that the consignment consisted of ready made garments worth of ₹ 33,35,335/- and the said consignment was not accompanied by valid documents like tax invoice and e-way bill and the same was in contravention of the provision of Section 68(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and KGST Act, 2017. On such basis the Revenue concluded that the same amounts to an attempt to avoid paying tax
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the documents that were made available by the driver of the conveyance and inspection of goods has been carried out in the presence of the driver and one Sri.D.H.Naik, who is incharge of petitioner s office at Bengaluru. 6. Learned HCGP would draw the attention of this Court to Annexure-A1 to the writ petition-the order of Demand of Tax and Penalty dated 22.08.2018. The Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), South Zone, Bengaluru, who is the Authority, has passed the order and categorically observed as follows:- Further, as per the request of the transporter, personal hearing was given through and endorsement dated 16.08.2018 on 17.08.2018. In response, Sri. Mahendra Jain, S/o Rajatmal, Proprietor of M/s. Bright Road, Logistics, Bengaluru appeared and was heard. At the time of hearing, he also filed a confirmation letter dated 14.08.2018 of M/s. Prathiksha Techologi, Sy. No.207, Site No.03, Jayasingah Layout, Halagevaderahalli Viullage, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka, pin-56
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ave consented, levy of tax and penalty and have undertaken to pay as per the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. Despite the same, the petitioner has been heard in the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also endeavor to contend that none of the consignees have been heard in the matter. 10. The letter marked at Annexure-H dated 23.08.2018, itself is an answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the letter, nowhere it is stated that the consignee requests for hearing and no material is placed on record to demonstrate the same. Apart from furnishing the letters of the consignees, there are no other details furnished by them. Further, the letter allegedly conveying the confirmation of the consignee to pay the due also does not inspire confidence in this Court. Infact the enclosures to the Annexure at page Nos.171, 173, 175 and 176, appears to be written in the same pen and by the same hand. These are factual aspects that has
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the issue. Hence, the said ruling is distinguishable and inapplicable to the instant case. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rectification order at Annexure-A3 dated 25.09.2018 has been passed without affording an opportunity and the unilateral action is unsustainable. 14. Per contra learned HCGP would draw the attention of the Court to rectification order and contend that the rectification order was necessitated on account of omission of the Proper Officer to consider the objection/reply filed by the petitioner on 18.09.2018. That the same was omitted from consideration as the objections were filed on 18.09.2018 i.e., a day prior to passing the orders on confiscation and the same was not placed before him. That the Proper Officer realizing the lacuna, has proceeded to pass the rectification order after taking into consideration the objections and hence, the same is nothing but an attempt by the Proper Officer to ensure that the objections filed and contentio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =