Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) Vs Surinder Kumar Kotnala & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Appeal Number : MAT 1328 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/03/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

State Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) Vs Surinder Kumar Kotnala & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)

1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the interim order dated 25th November, 2021 in W.P.A. No.16096 of 2021 filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein. The respondent nos.1 and 2 had challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 dated 15th September, 2021 confirming the order of the adjudicating authority dated 6th May, 2021 in levying tax of Rs.26,45,299/- and penalty of Rs.37,84,829 on the alleged ground that the goods were attempted to be offloaded in the State of West Bengal, though the goods were consigned to the State of Assam. The goods have been detained along with the vehicle since March, 2021 since the appellant could not avail the alternative remedy provided under Section 112 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal as there is no forum as on date the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority.

2. The respondent nos.1 and 2 prayed before the learned Single Bench for release of the goods as well as vehicle as the goods, which is said to be pan masala is unfit for consumption on account of the fact that the goods were detained ever since March, 2021 and the vehicle also has deteriorated on account of exposure to the fury of weather.

GST HC upheld order imposing conditions on release of seized goods & vehicle

3. The learned Single Bench on taking note of the fact that there is no forum available for the respondent nos.1 and 2 to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority, entertained the writ petition and imposed a condition on the respondent nos.1 and 2 for release of the vehicle and the goods. The learned Single Bench had directed 20% of the disputed tax amount to be paid by the respondent nos.1 and 2 so as to be entitled to release of the goods and the vehicle taking note of the fact that at time of filing of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the first respondent, the consignee in the State of Assam, who claims ownership of the goods had deposited 10% of the disputed tax.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031