Provisions of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. The respondent is directed to contemporaneously decide on the impugned Show Cause Notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 130 of the Act.
Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit - The petitioner a transporter, challenged SCN dated 07.09.2020 issued under Section 130. He sought for a direction to the respondent to consider his representation dated 01.09.2020. The respondent passed the order of detention dated 10.08.2020 under section 129(1) on the ground for verification the origin and source of goods and for confirmation of the existence of the Consignor and the Consignee since the Consignee’s place of business is Tamil Nadu where tobacco products are banned. Further there was mismatch in the weight of the pouches in the Tax Invoices; there is difference in MRP of the Goods and the price as mentioned in the Tax Invoices but the details of discount are not mentioned. The respondent submitted that there is connivance between the petitioner and the Consignor/Consignee. Further submitted that there is huge mismatch between the Inward and Outward Supply turnover of tobacco products by the Consignor and the Consignee. The court observed that at the time on intercepting a conveyance, authorities may not be able to immediately ascertain whether there is contravention of the provisions of the Act/Rules or not. Further, they may not immediately know whether there is any intent to evade payment of tax. If during the course of enquiry under Section 129, it comes to the knowledge of the proper officer, there is an intent to evade payment of tax, proceedings under Section 130 of the Act would have to follow. The non-obstante clauses in both Sections 129 and 130 of the Act, will have to be read harmoniously. The non-obstante clause establishes that the Legislature did not intend that, for the commencement of the proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the Act should end even without determination of the liability thereunder.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court disposed of restoring the SCN dated 25.08.2020 directing the respondent to decide on the proposed levy of tax, penalty and cess as proposed therein with reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who shall have the liberty to seek provisional release of goods/conveyance as provided for under sub-clause (2) of Section 129 of the Act.
Provisions of Section 129 and Section 130 of the Act are mutually exclusive and independent of each other. The respondent is directed to contemporaneously decide on the impugned Show Cause Notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 130 of the Act.
Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit - The petitioner a transporter, challenged SCN dated 07.09.2020 issued under Section 130. He sought for a direction to the respondent to consider his representation dated 01.09.2020. The respondent passed the order of detention dated 10.08.2020 under section 129(1) on the ground for verification the origin and source of goods and for confirmation of the existence of the Consignor and the Consignee since the Consignee’s place of business is Tamil Nadu where tobacco products are banned. Further there was mismatch in the weight of the pouches in the Tax Invoices; there is difference in MRP of the Goods and the price as mentioned in the Tax Invoices but the details of discount are not mentioned. The respondent submitted that there is connivance between the petitioner and the Consignor/Consignee. Further submitted that there is huge mismatch between the Inward and Outward Supply turnover of tobacco products by the Consignor and the Consignee. The court observed that at the time on intercepting a conveyance, authorities may not be able to immediately ascertain whether there is contravention of the provisions of the Act/Rules or not. Further, they may not immediately know whether there is any intent to evade payment of tax. If during the course of enquiry under Section 129, it comes to the knowledge of the proper officer, there is an intent to evade payment of tax, proceedings under Section 130 of the Act would have to follow. The non-obstante clauses in both Sections 129 and 130 of the Act, will have to be read harmoniously. The non-obstante clause establishes that the Legislature did not intend that, for the commencement of the proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the Act should end even without determination of the liability thereunder.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court disposed of restoring the SCN dated 25.08.2020 directing the respondent to decide on the proposed levy of tax, penalty and cess as proposed therein with reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who shall have the liberty to seek provisional release of goods/conveyance as provided for under sub-clause (2) of Section 129 of the Act.