Mere suspicion is not sufficient to invoke the provision of the confiscation.
Section 129, 130 of CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit ----- The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the Act and challenged SCN dated 01.04.2021, passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner transported goods on the basis of e-Way bills, which were to expire on 30.03.2021. Due to festival of Holi on 29.03.2021, the drivers stopped the journey on 28.03.2021. The respondent intercepted the vehicles on 31.03.2021. The respondent issued SCN on 01.04.2021. The petitioner replied SCN on 08.04.2021 but the same was not accepted and on 08.04.2021, the respondent issued supplementary SCN alleging classification issue and second time inspection of the goods was carried out. Instead of considering reply, orders dated NIL were passed and goods and vehicles were not released. Further, on 17.04.2021, the respondent-department issued notices under Section 130 of the Act and passed orders on 23.04.2021. The petitioner submitted that these orders dated 23.04.2021 were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing.
Held that—The Hon’ble High Court allowed both the writ petitions partly by quashing the impugned orders dated 23.04.2021, passed under Section 130 and directed the respondents to release the vehicles and goods, upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in Form GST INS-04 and furnishing of a security in form of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable. Further clarified that after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the respondents may proceed further in accordance with law.
Mere suspicion is not sufficient to invoke the provision of the confiscation.
Section 129, 130 of CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit ----- The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the Act and challenged SCN dated 01.04.2021, passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner transported goods on the basis of e-Way bills, which were to expire on 30.03.2021. Due to festival of Holi on 29.03.2021, the drivers stopped the journey on 28.03.2021. The respondent intercepted the vehicles on 31.03.2021. The respondent issued SCN on 01.04.2021. The petitioner replied SCN on 08.04.2021 but the same was not accepted and on 08.04.2021, the respondent issued supplementary SCN alleging classification issue and second time inspection of the goods was carried out. Instead of considering reply, orders dated NIL were passed and goods and vehicles were not released. Further, on 17.04.2021, the respondent-department issued notices under Section 130 of the Act and passed orders on 23.04.2021. The petitioner submitted that these orders dated 23.04.2021 were passed without giving an opportunity of hearing.
Held that—The Hon’ble High Court allowed both the writ petitions partly by quashing the impugned orders dated 23.04.2021, passed under Section 130 and directed the respondents to release the vehicles and goods, upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in Form GST INS-04 and furnishing of a security in form of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable. Further clarified that after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the respondents may proceed further in accordance with law.