Order date: 19 January, 2023

RAM PRAKASH CHAUHAN vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI (GOODS AND SERVICE TAX) & ANR.

Facts

• The Petitioner’s, RAM PRAKASH CHAUHAN, goods were detained by a detention order and on the same date, notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued. It stated the reasons for detaining the goods as “prima facie, the documents tendered are found to be defective”.
• On the same date, an order of demand of tax and penalty was passed raising a demand of ₹2,78,129/- and a penalty of an equivalent amount.
• The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority impugning the said demand of tax and the levy of penalty. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order.

Issue

• Whether the goods were wrongly detained?

Order

• The Tribunal observed that it is apparent that neither the show cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as penalty. The notice dated 23.10.2020 merely indicates that the documents tendered are found to be defective; it does not mention any specific defect found by the concerned GST Authorities.
• The order of tax and demand, which is also dated 23.10.2020, does not specify any reason why the documents accompanying the goods were found to be defective.
•  Held that it would be apposite to remand the matter to the concerned GST officer to decide afresh after giving the petitioner full opportunity to address the allegation against him
• The order raising a demand of tax and penalty and order passed Appellate Authority set aside.