Ms L D Goyal Steels Private LTD Through Its Managing Director Mr Somdutt Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The High Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appellate authority against the impugned order dated July 29, 2020, passed under Form GST MOV-09. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Division, Ramgarh (respondent no. 2) was directed to provide the GSTIN No. with ID and password to the petitioner to enable online appeal filing. If the appeal could not be accepted online due to technical reasons, the petitioner was given liberty to prefer a manual appeal before the appellate authority, CGST and Central Excise, Ranchi. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits of the case of the parties. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. L.D. Goyal Steels Private Ltd., a manufacturing company, had its vehicle detained by Central Tax Authorities under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The vehicle was released upon the deposit of the entire amount of tax and penalty. The petitioner challenged the detention order (Form GST MOV-06) and the notice proposing tax and penalty (Form GST MOV-07), both dated July 10, 2020, arguing that these were issued without providing an opportunity for hearing, despite the payment being made 'under protest'. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and refund of the amount paid. The respondents contended that the vehicle was intercepted on July 9, 2020, without valid documents, and that proceedings were carried out in accordance with law. They also raised the plea of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of detention (Form GST MOV-06) and the notice proposing tax and penalty (Form GST MOV-07) issued under Section 129 of the CGST Act, both dated July 10, 2020, are bad in law and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's claim that no opportunity of hearing was provided before concluding proceedings despite payment under protest? 2. Whether the respondents are liable to refund the amount paid by the petitioner 'under protest' towards tax and penalty, as the proceedings were concluded without providing an opportunity of hearing and issuing a final order? 3. Alternatively, whether the respondents should be directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to satisfy the genuineness of the transaction, considering documents discarded by the authorities, and if satisfied, refund the amount paid under protest? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that no adjudication order was communicated, and the proceedings were concluded without an opportunity of hearing, despite payment under protest. They also stated they had no difficulty approaching the appellate authority but lacked the necessary GSTIN No. with ID and Password to file an appeal. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that the vehicle was intercepted without valid documents, and proceedings were conducted as per law. They raised the plea of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which the petitioner had not availed. They also stated that the GSTIN No. with ID and Password could be issued by the Deputy Commissioner upon approach.