Mere non-production of the records at the inception, will not automatically falsify the records produced later. The order must reflect the reasons as to why and how the records are fudged and spurious ones. The confiscation order passed by respondent is set aside
Confiscation of goods- The petitioners implore for writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by respondent confiscating 69 Kgs of silver ornaments and directing the petitioners to pay tax, penalty and and fine in lieu of confiscation, as without authorization as contemplated u/s 67 of CGST Act, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the confiscation proceedings.
the crucial question is whether the 1st respondent is justified in proceeding simultaneously under Section 129 & 130 of the CGST Act against the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that Section 129 and 130 are interrelated and interdependent, as, the confiscation proceedings under Section 130 can be taken only when the in-charge of a conveyance failed to pay tax and penalty for the transported goods within 14 days of detention as prescribed in Section 129(6) of the CGST Act. Whereas, learned Government Pleader traversed said plea and argued that both the sections are mutually exclusive and procedures contemplated whereof can be followed simultaneously.
Held that- this writ petition is allowed and while the confiscation order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside, the 1st respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry afresh and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners with reference to their explanation and pass an appropriate order by giving cogent reasons in accordance with law.