Breif Issue :

FACTS AND ISSUE OF THE CASE:

In this case petitioner drew attention to Ext.P2 notice and argued that the respondent department has not followed the provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He contended that Ext.P2 notice reflects that the goods viz-a-viz jewellery items were seized and detained by the respondent authorities and as such, the respondent authority was duty bound to issue notice as envisaged under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, specifying the tax and penalty payable and then to proceed to pass the order after hearing the petitioner.

In case of the adverse order, if any, the respondent authority was duty bound to grant time of 14 days to the petitioner to pay the amount of tax and penalty as per the provisions under Section 129(6) of the GST Act. In submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in order to impose huge amount of the tax and penalty apart from confiscation of goods, the respondent authority resorted to the provisions of Section 130 of the GST Act and there is no basis for coming to prima facie conclusion that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of tax under the GST Act. He argued that seized articles were in fact, samples meant for showing the same to the wholesalers for the purpose of soliciting business. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 impugned order, no where points out as to which provision of the GST Act were contravened by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition needs to be admitted with interim stay as prayed.