M/S. Khanna Engineering, Rourkela Vs the Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S. Khanna Engineering, Rourkela Vs the Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

Issue for consideration

Whether the detention of the truck carrying the consignment was illegal because no order was made within a period of seven days from the date of service of the notice, as provided by sub-section (3) of section 129, Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On payment of the amount referred in sub-section (1) of section 129, all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) stand deemed concluded by operation of sub-section (5); the proceeding commenced by the notice served on the petitioner was thus concluded upon his payment of the penalty.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly left open, and did not adjudicate, whether in spite of payment of the required penalty an order was required to be made under sub-section (3) of section 129, because on the payment, by operation of sub-section (5), the proceeding was deemed to be concluded.obiter¶28
Finding of fact: petitioner admitted the notice having been served and payment of penalty on calculation made, all done on the date of detaining the truck, i.e. 5th July, 2024, and State revenue confirmed the payment.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition — High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, s.129 — Truck carrying petitioner's consignment detained on 5 July 2024; Form GST MOV-07 issued the same day reflecting penalty of Rs.5,37,656 under s.129(1)(a); petitioner paid the penalty and secured release of the truck the same day. His application dated 4 September 2024 for an order in Form GST MOV-09 was rejected by order dated 26 September 2024 as devoid of merit; petitioner contended the detention was illegal as no order was made within seven days of service of the notice under s.129(3). Held: under s.129(5), on payment of the amount referred in s.129(1) all proceedings in respect of the s.129(3) notice are deemed concluded; the Court therefore found it unnecessary to adjudicate whether an order under s.129(3) was required despite the payment. Writ petition dismissed. (Arindam Sinha, ACJ and M.S. Sahoo, J.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025

M/s. Khanna Engineering, Rourkela

Petitioner

-Versus-

The Commissioner of CT & GST, Cuttack and others

…. Opposite Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Mishra, Standing Counsel & Mr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing and judgment: 18^th February, 2025

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and

submits, his client had filed petition dated 4^th September, 2024 seeking

passing of order in Form GST MOV-09. The truck carrying

Page 1 of 4

consignment was detained on 5^th July, 2024. There was urgency for his client to conclude the consignment. Hence on 5^th July, 2024 itself his client paid Rs.5,37,656/- and got released the truck. However, the detention was illegal. There was no order made within a period of seven days from the date of service of the notice, as provided by sub-section (3) in section 129, Odisha Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Hence, the petition.

2. He submits, by impugned order dated 26^th September, 2024 the petition stood rejected as devoid of merit. It does not bear a reason that can be acceptable in law. He reiterates, no order was passed within period of seven days from date of service of the notice and hence, the rejection of the petition by impugned order is bad. He seeks interference.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue. He submits, on 5^th July, 2024 itself, petitioner paid the penalty to compound the offence. The proceeding was dropped there and then. The truck stood released. Petitioner after having admitted his liability cannot be allowed to turn around and seek adjudication on merits. It is an abuse of the process.

Page 2 of 4

WPC no.3055 of 2025

4. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue.

5. We find disclosed in the petition Form GST MOV-07 dated 5^th July, 2024. In it there is reflection of calculation of applicable penalty under clause (a) of sub-section (1) in section 129. The amount is Rs.5,37,656/-, which petitioner says he paid and State revenue confirms, he did. In the circumstances, we have a situation where petitioner admits the notice having been served and payment of penalty on calculation made, all done on the date of detaining the truck, i.e. 5^th July, 2024.

6. Sub-section (5) under section 129 says, on payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceeding in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. Proceeding under sub-section (3) was initiated by the notice, received

by petitioner. This happened on detaining his truck. There was calculation of penalty to be paid. It was in the proceeding commenced by the notice. Petitioner paid the penalty. Sub-section (5) came into operation. It is not necessary for us to adjudicate on whether in spite of payment of the required penalty an order was required to be made under

Page 3 of 4

WPC no.3055 of 2025

sub-section (3) because on the payment, by operation of sub-section (5), the proceeding was deemed to be concluded.

7. We find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.

( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice

( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge

Arun Mishra

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Feb-2025 19:25:57

WPC no.3055 of 2025

Page 4 of 4