Liberty given to to the respondent to issue notice afresh related to detention of goods
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017- Goods in Transit – The petitioner prayed to direct the respondent to sanction the refund which has been collected as penalty. The SCN issued prior to passing of the impugned order does not stipulate even basic details such as the date and time of hearing and merely states DD/MM/YYYY at HH/MM, without filling in the fields. The requirement of passing a speaking order has been entirely frustrated in so far as in the field marked 'speaking order', there are no reasons set out for the conclusion arrived at by the authority. Manifest non application of mind is evident. The court observed that though the show cause notice and the impugned order are entirely non-speaking and contain blanks, which vitiate them in full, the statement of the driver recorded in Form-GST MOV-01. The court observed that there is discrepancy in documentation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Petition and directed the respondent to issue notice afresh, hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order in regard to the levy of penalty, de novo. Let this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks.
Liberty given to to the respondent to issue notice afresh related to detention of goods
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017- Goods in Transit – The petitioner prayed to direct the respondent to sanction the refund which has been collected as penalty. The SCN issued prior to passing of the impugned order does not stipulate even basic details such as the date and time of hearing and merely states DD/MM/YYYY at HH/MM, without filling in the fields. The requirement of passing a speaking order has been entirely frustrated in so far as in the field marked 'speaking order', there are no reasons set out for the conclusion arrived at by the authority. Manifest non application of mind is evident. The court observed that though the show cause notice and the impugned order are entirely non-speaking and contain blanks, which vitiate them in full, the statement of the driver recorded in Form-GST MOV-01. The court observed that there is discrepancy in documentation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Petition and directed the respondent to issue notice afresh, hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order in regard to the levy of penalty, de novo. Let this exercise be completed within a period of six weeks.