M\/s. Bright Road Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (ENF-21)
GST
2019 (1) TMI 678 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 150 (Kar.) , [2019] 66 G S.T.R. 235 (Kar)
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 20-12-2018
Writ Petition No. 47450 of 2018(T-RES)
GST
Mr. Justice G. Narendar
\nFor the Petitioner : Smt. Veena J. Kamath, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Sri. Vikram Huilgol, HCGP
\nORDER
\nHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vikram Huilgol, learned HCGP for respondent.
\n2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the detention order dated 10.08.2018 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act' for short), the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance and demand of tax, fine and penalty dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-A2) issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act and the rectification order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure-A3) issu<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n an attempt to avoid paying tax to the Government and same is liable to be levied as mandated under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Hobli, Bengaluru Urban, Karnataka, pin-560098. GSTIN 29CKOPP0258F3ZR for the goods covered by the LR No.707, 801, 791, 769, 793, 790, 792, 796, 2733, 798, 794, 810, 797, 783, 768 and 800 total 16 LRs covering 24 Bundles of goods along with original photocopies of the connected LRs and cash bills. The contents of the letter are reproduced.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n y the same hand. These are factual aspects that has to be gone into and adjudicated by the fact finding authority. This Court does not find any good ground warranting interference with the impugned orders by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Bright Road Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (ENF-21)GST2019 (1) TMI 678 – KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 150 (Kar.) , [2019] 66 G S.T.R. 235 (Kar)KARNATAKA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 20-12-2018Writ Petition No. 47450 of 2018(T-RES) GSTMr. Justice G. Narendar For the Petitioner : Smt. Veena … Continue reading “M\/s. Bright Road Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (ENF-21)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order stands vitiated on the sole ground that there is non-compliance of the mandate under the provisions of Section 129(4) of the Act and hence the same warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
\n5. It is contended that the order of detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act vide Annexure-A, the order of confiscation vide Annexure-A2 and rectification order vide Annexure-A3 to the writ petition have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that the objections put forth by the petitioner had not been taken into consideration while passing the orders, which are impugned herein. The arguments put forth are required to be rejected for the following reasons:
\n 1) The petitioner is a transporter; and
\n 2) The detention and seizure order h<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. 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.
\nThat apart, the petitioner has also placed reliance on the document marked as Annexure-H, which is allegedly addressed to the Commercial Tax Officer and by the said letter, the petitioner states as under:
\n “Kindly take this confirmation letter on record and pass the order under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The consignee will agree to pay the tax and penalty. Do the needful and oblige.”
\n8. From the above, it is apparent that the all<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n11. The petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in 2018 SCC Online Ker 2696 in the case of The Assistant State Tax Officer Vs. M\/s. Indus Towers Limited, with particular reference to the observations made by the Court at Paragraph Nos. 26and 27, wherein the Division Bench at para 27 after taking note of the fact of declaration having been made even prior to the commencement of transport found it necessary to order for release of goods.
\n12. In the instant case, no declaration has been made by the consignees either prior to the commencement of transport or even after the goods have been seized. Hence, the case put forth by the petitioner does not <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n