In view of confession letter filed by petitioner admitting his guilt, the writ petition is not maintainable. So the confiscation proceedings cannot be said to be in violation of law and rules.
Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017- Goods in Transit -- The petitioner sought writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in detaining goods while transporting along with vehicle and further issuing impugned “summary of order” dated 02.12.2019 by treating the detention notice as assessment order, as contrary and violative of principles of natural justice. His vehicle was detained on the ground that the petitioner’s driver failed to produce relevant documents. The respondent counsel submitted that against the impugned order appeal lay before Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner got released all the goods proposed for confiscation upon payment of the fine, tax and penalty by availing the option afforded under Section 130(2) and (3). An opportunity to file written objections and personal hearing was given to the petitioner but he did not avail. The court observed that SCN and confession letter dated 12.03.2018 contained the stamp and signature of the petitioner. If issuance of the SCN and passing of the proceedings consequent upon the admission of the guilt of the petitioner are true, the respondents can be said to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 130.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court found no merits in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition.
In view of confession letter filed by petitioner admitting his guilt, the writ petition is not maintainable. So the confiscation proceedings cannot be said to be in violation of law and rules.
Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017- Goods in Transit -- The petitioner sought writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in detaining goods while transporting along with vehicle and further issuing impugned “summary of order” dated 02.12.2019 by treating the detention notice as assessment order, as contrary and violative of principles of natural justice. His vehicle was detained on the ground that the petitioner’s driver failed to produce relevant documents. The respondent counsel submitted that against the impugned order appeal lay before Appellate Joint Commissioner (ST) under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner got released all the goods proposed for confiscation upon payment of the fine, tax and penalty by availing the option afforded under Section 130(2) and (3). An opportunity to file written objections and personal hearing was given to the petitioner but he did not avail. The court observed that SCN and confession letter dated 12.03.2018 contained the stamp and signature of the petitioner. If issuance of the SCN and passing of the proceedings consequent upon the admission of the guilt of the petitioner are true, the respondents can be said to have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 130.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court found no merits in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition.