A company (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of their goods and vehicle by the GST department. The department had accused the company of fraudulent transactions and imposed a significant penalty.
Key Points:
- The company argued the initial notices (MOV-02 and MOV-10) were without jurisdiction.
- However, the department had already issued a final order (MOV-11) confiscating the goods and imposing a fine.
- The company acknowledged the option to appeal the final order but sought a different remedy through the writ petition.
- Citing a previous Supreme Court case, the company argued for a 25% cash deposit and bank guarantee for the remaining amount.
Court's Decision:
- The court dismissed the writ petition as the company had an alternative remedy through the appeal process.
- The court acknowledged the Supreme Court precedent allowing a 25% cash deposit with a bank guarantee in similar situations.
- However, due to the company being from another state, the court deemed a bank guarantee insufficient and required a cash deposit for the remaining 75%.
Outcome:
- The company can still appeal the final order (MOV-11) but will need to deposit 25% of the penalty upfront.
- The remaining 75% must be secured by cash, not a bank guarantee, due to the company's location.
Topic-Kanchan Supplier Versus State of Punjab
Citation-2024 TAXONATION 200 (PUNJAB AND HARYANA)
Date-24/01/2024
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL CASE LAW
