2021 (7) TMI 1397 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - expired E-way bill - case of petitioner is that the E-way bill unfortunately expired as the vehicle could not travel within the prescribed time because of break-down - HELD THAT - For whatever reasons, the goods, at the time of inspection, were found to be without valid documents as required by the GST Act. The proper Officer, therefore, started proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, which are not even culminated in the final order. In the matter of M/S. PODARAN FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF KERALA, THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (SQUAD NO. I) , THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT 2021 (1) TMI 552 - KERALA HIGH COURT , this court had already concluded the issue with the observations that I do not find any reason to interfere with the adjudication orders in Form GST MOV-9 impugned in the writ petition. The petitioner is relegated to his alternate remedy of preferring appeals against the said adjudication orders before the appellate authority under the Act. All contentions, legal and factual, are left open to be agitated by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice Form GST Mov-02 due to expired E-way bill during breakdown.
2. Maintainability of the petition based on Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act.

Issue 1: Validity of notice Form GST Mov-02 due to expired E-way bill during breakdown

The petitioner argued that the impugned notice Form GST Mov-02 was illegal as the goods were being transported with an expired E-way bill due to a breakdown that prevented renewal within the prescribed time. The learned counsel emphasized that the breakdown caused the E-way bill to expire over the weekend, making it impossible to renew it. However, the Government Pleader contended that the petition was not maintainable under Section 129 of the GST Act, citing a previous judgment. The Court noted that at the time of inspection, the goods lacked valid documents required by the GST Act, leading to proceedings under Section 129. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that the proper officer does not have discretion to condone procedural lapses and must interpret rules strictly to prevent tax evasion. The petitioner was directed to approach the appellate authority against the proper officer's findings, as per Section 129(3) of the Act.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the petition based on Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act

The Government Pleader argued that the petition was not maintainable, pointing to the provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Citing a previous judgment in a similar matter, the Court emphasized that the proper officer must strictly enforce rules to prevent tax evasion and that any aggrieved party must seek redress through the appellate authority. The Court reiterated that the petitioner's remedy lay in appealing against the adjudication orders before the appellate authority under the Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, allowing the petitioner to participate in proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act while upholding the stay against the invocation of the bank guarantee for two months from the judgment date.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the strict enforcement of rules under Section 129 of the GST Act, emphasizing the importance of preventing tax evasion and directing aggrieved parties to seek redress through the appellate authority. The judgment highlighted the necessity for proper compliance with statutory provisions and the availability of appellate remedies for parties dissatisfied with the decisions of the proper officer.