Page 100 - GSTL_6th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 1

26 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
haustive one. According to the definition, even a transfer of goods is covered un-
der the said provision. Therefore, when the movement of consignment begins its
journey from point A to point B, it is said to be transferred from the consignor to
the consignee. Hence, whether the goods were being sent for the purpose of
demonstration, or on a returnable basis, is immaterial. Secondly, the moment an
invoice is generated, the tax liability arises automatically. In case the goods were
to be returned by the consignee, the consignor would be at liberty to claim the
adjustment in his future tax liabilities that will arise. However, the consignor
cannot escape the liability to pay the tax. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay
the tax to the Department. Since the tax has been evaded by the petitioner, the
Department was justified in imposing the penalty of the same amount. Hence,
the Learned Counsel has supported the impugned order.
8. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned
order, and considered the record submitted by the petitioner along with the Writ
Petition.
9. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the peti-
tioner had, indeed, raised the issue of the tax liability on the said transaction. Ac-
cording to the petitioner, the tax liability had not even arisen. Since there was no
taxable event, which had occurred, the question of having to pay the tax would
not arise. Despite the fact that the said contention was raised by the petitioner,
the respondent No. 1 has failed to deal with the said contention. Moreover, the
respondent No. 1 has not even assigned any reason for ignoring the said conten-
tion. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly a non-speaking order, as the mate-
rial contention has been totally ignored by the respondent No. 1.
10. Since the impugned order is a non-speaking one, this Court has no
other option, except to set aside the said impugned order, and to remand the case
back to the respondent No. 1 with a direction that he shall give both the parties,
the petitioner as well as the Revenue Department, ample opportunities to raise
their contentions in their respective favour, and to pass a reasoned order, within
a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, hereby, allowed.
12. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_______

2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 26 (P&H)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ajay Tewari and Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, JJ.
OPEL AUTO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
CWP No. 8139 of 2020 (O&M), decided on 16-6-2020
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Final
quantification not determined in appellant’s case and amount of ` 20 lakhs

GST LAW TIMES  6th August 2020  100