There is no such obligation on CBIC to reply to the representation to advise the petitioner on the authority under which goods in movement are intercepted, detained and/or procedure to be adopted thereafter and the scope of verification of documents etc.
Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017— Revocation of Cancellation of Registration -- The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent CBIC and respondent Sales Tax Officer to reply to his representation dated 17th November, 2020. The communication dated 17th November, 2020 sought clarification of Section 168 of the Act on issues arising out of interception/detention and seizure/confiscation proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the Act. The court observed that communication dated 17th November, 2020 is in the nature of seeking legal opinion from CBIC and there is no such obligation on the respondent CBIC to advise the petitioner. The petitioner counsel thereafter submitted that the respondent State has cancelled the registration of the petitioner. The respondent counsel submitted that under Section 30 of the Act, an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration is permitted to be filed.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court directed the respondent to decide the application of the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, within four weeks.
There is no such obligation on CBIC to reply to the representation to advise the petitioner on the authority under which goods in movement are intercepted, detained and/or procedure to be adopted thereafter and the scope of verification of documents etc.
Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017— Revocation of Cancellation of Registration -- The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent CBIC and respondent Sales Tax Officer to reply to his representation dated 17th November, 2020. The communication dated 17th November, 2020 sought clarification of Section 168 of the Act on issues arising out of interception/detention and seizure/confiscation proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the Act. The court observed that communication dated 17th November, 2020 is in the nature of seeking legal opinion from CBIC and there is no such obligation on the respondent CBIC to advise the petitioner. The petitioner counsel thereafter submitted that the respondent State has cancelled the registration of the petitioner. The respondent counsel submitted that under Section 30 of the Act, an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration is permitted to be filed.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court directed the respondent to decide the application of the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, within four weeks.