2018 (6) TMI 423 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods and vehicle - penalty u/s 129(1) and 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - goods found in excess as against the disclosed goods - petitioner also downloaded the TDF - Held that - It is clear that the goods were meant for one State to other and are being transported through the State of U.P. The petitioner being transporter has on wrong advice downloaded the transit declaration Form which was prescribed under the VAT Act and has no role so far as the transaction in question is concerned, which is covered by the provisions of the CGST, Act, 2017 - it also transpired that the goods of ₹ 3,59,220/- are found in excess as against the disclosed goods. Since the petitioner is a Transport Company and is not registered as a dealer at any place, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹ 67,010/-, which is estimated by the seizing authority as liability of tax, for release of the seized goods and vehicle - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of seizure of goods and vehicle, initiation of penalty proceedings under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the U.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Transport Company, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of goods and vehicle, as well as penalty proceedings under the U.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The goods loaded in the vehicle were being transported from Delhi to Jharkhand for various registered dealers, accompanied by goods receipts and tax invoices. The petitioner downloaded a transit declaration Form-1 at the U.P. Border for Inter-State movement of goods. The vehicle was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, who seized 32 packets valued at ?3,59,220, alleging discrepancies in the accompanying documents. A show cause notice was issued for a penalty of ?67,010 under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.

Upon hearing the parties, it was established that the goods were intended for inter-state transportation, and the petitioner, as a transporter, had mistakenly downloaded a transit declaration form under the VAT Act, not relevant to the CGST Act, 2017. The seizing authority found an excess of goods worth ?3,59,220. As the petitioner was not a registered dealer, they were directed to deposit ?67,010, representing the tax liability, for the release of the seized goods and vehicle.

The court disposed of the writ petition by ordering the release of goods and vehicle upon the petitioner's deposit of ?67,010 in cash or through a bank draft, along with an indemnity bond covering the penalty amount. Compliance with the order was mandated, and the respondent was instructed to release the goods promptly upon fulfillment of the specified conditions.