Sfc Environmental Technologies Limited Vs Union of India

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The petitioner, is in the business of providing solutions for Environmental Technology, especially sewage treatment and municipal solid waste treatment. The petitioner is said to have placed an order for certain components on a manufacturer, situated in Telangana State. When the goods were being transported from Telangana to the premises of a customer of the petitioner, in Karnataka, the goods were stopped by the 4^threspondent, in Andhra Pradesh, and process was initiated for seizure and confiscation of the said goods. At that stage, the petitioner is said to have paid the penalty payable in such cases and got the goods and vehicle released.

2. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 29.10.2024, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty amount collected earlier, should not be confirmed against the petitioner. In response to this show cause notice, the petitioner filed a response, dated 31.10.2024. In this response, the petitioner took the stand that the time, as statutorily available to the petitioner, to furnish the response to the show cause notice is seven days, despite which, the 4^threspondent had foreclosed the same and sent notices of personal hearing even before the earlier seven days period is over.

3. Subsequently, the  4^th  respondent  passed  an  order, dated 05.11.2024, confirming the penalty amount which has already been collected from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same order, the petitioner had approached this Court.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that this Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 01.02.2022, in W.P.No.2260 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench, following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. M/s. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 811,had held that writ petitions should not be entertained against the orders of seizure and confiscation and that the petitioners therein should be relegated to the regular remedies under the relevant Act.

5. This Judgment, may not be applicable to the present case, in as much as the main contention caused by the petitioner is on questions of violation of principles of natural justice and violation of the minimum period, of seven days, granted under the notice issued to the petitioner.

6. In the present case, the show cause notice was issued on 29.10.2024, while the order of penalty was passed on 05.11.2024, within the aforesaid period of seven days provided under the notice issued to the Petitioner.

7. Form GST MOV 07 issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act stipulates that time of seven days is given for answering the show cause notice.

8. In the circumstances, there is a clear procedural violation prescribed under the Act. Apart from the same, it would also amount to violation of principles of natural justice as adequate opportunity has not been given to the petitioner.

9. Consequently, the order of penalty, dated 05.11.2024, bearing GST MOV-07 passed by the 4^th respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 4^th respondent to pass necessary orders after due opportunity of hearing and opportunity of making out its case is given to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.