Confiscation of Goods Without Giving Details of Discrepancies Noticed During Verification Is Unjustified | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 29 July, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Cluster Enterprises v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2 - [2024] 164 taxmann.com 624 (Andhra Pradesh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Raghunandan Rao & Harinath N., JJ.
- V. Bhaskar Reddy, Ld. Sr. Counsel & V. Siddharth Reddy for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was involved in business of scrap iron and was transporting scrap iron for sale to a dealer in Telangana State. The vehicles in which this scrap iron was being transported was stopped for verification and inspection. The department issued notice under Section 130 calling upon petitioner to show cause why goods under transport and as well as the vehicle in which the goods have been transported should not be confiscated. The petitioner filed its objections but the department passed order confiscating goods as well as the vehicle.
The petitioner filed writ petition and contended that the proceedings, including the order of confiscation, were invalid and without jurisdiction as the show cause notice lacked detailed reasons and necessary material was not provided to it.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that it is a settled principle of law that a show cause notice would have to set out the entire case against noticee and noticee should be given an opportunity to rebut the same. However, in the instant case, the show cause notice lacked detailed reasons and necessary material was not provided to assessee.
Moreover, the order of confiscation contained various details which were not available in the show cause notice. Also, the department did not choose to respond to the request of the petitioner for supply of the material on the basis of which the show cause notice had been issued. Therefore, the Court held that the confiscation order was liable to be set aside and matter was remanded back for proper adjudication.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Synergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.4730 of 2019]
- Siddhbali Stone Gallery v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.17533 of 2019 (Para 26) followed.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
