The first respondent without application of mind has proceeded to reject the appeal which is arbitrary and in contravention of principles of natural justice. The said endorsement is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit - The petitioner is a transport contractor challenged the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by the appellate authority. The second respondent intercepted the goods conveyance and initiated proceedings under Section 129 and detained the goods conveyance on the ground of the bonafide of the consigner under doubt. The consigner took all the steps to show his bonafide. But the respondent during the lockdown period, without giving an opportunity to produce evidence passed the order and concluded the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the authority without considering the material on record rejected the appeal by the order dated 23.07.2020. The petitioner submitted that the first respondent - appellate authority without providing an opportunity to him has issued the impugned endorsement. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent counsel conceded that the first respondent has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the appeal and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the order. The court observed that the impugned order issued by the first respondent is not a speaking order. The first respondent without application of mind has proceeded to reject the appeal which is arbitrary and in contravention of principles of natural justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned order/endorsement dated 23.07.2020 and remitted the matter to first respondent to reconsider the appeal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months.
The first respondent without application of mind has proceeded to reject the appeal which is arbitrary and in contravention of principles of natural justice. The said endorsement is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit - The petitioner is a transport contractor challenged the order dated 23.07.2020 passed by the appellate authority. The second respondent intercepted the goods conveyance and initiated proceedings under Section 129 and detained the goods conveyance on the ground of the bonafide of the consigner under doubt. The consigner took all the steps to show his bonafide. But the respondent during the lockdown period, without giving an opportunity to produce evidence passed the order and concluded the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal but the authority without considering the material on record rejected the appeal by the order dated 23.07.2020. The petitioner submitted that the first respondent - appellate authority without providing an opportunity to him has issued the impugned endorsement. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent counsel conceded that the first respondent has not assigned any reasons while rejecting the appeal and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before issuing the order. The court observed that the impugned order issued by the first respondent is not a speaking order. The first respondent without application of mind has proceeded to reject the appeal which is arbitrary and in contravention of principles of natural justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned order/endorsement dated 23.07.2020 and remitted the matter to first respondent to reconsider the appeal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months.