9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1322 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - inter-state transit of goods - Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - applicability of IGST Act - Held that - The provisions of U.P.G.S.T. are applicable to transactions within the State of U.P. whereas I.G.S.T. covers the interstate transactions - Section 20 of the I.G.S.T. makes applicable the provisions of Central G.S.T. in respect to matters relating to inspection, search and seizure under the said Act. Even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central G.S.T., as there was no provision of E-Way bill on the relevant date under the Central G.S.T. prima facie the seizure appears to be illegal. The goods seized be released along with the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing indemnity bond and security (other than cash and bank guarantee) in respect of the proposed tax and penalty on the value of the goods shown in the documents accompanying the same.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of U.P. GST Act over goods in transit from outside the state. 2. Validity of seizure order under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act. 3. Applicability of E-Way bill provisions under Central GST and U.P. GST. Jurisdiction of U.P. GST Act over goods in transit from outside the state: The petitioner contested the seizure of goods under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, arguing that since the goods were in transit from outside the state, the transaction should be governed by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act (I.G.S.T.) along with Central G.S.T., making the U.P. G.S.T. provisions inapplicable. However, the respondent contended that the seizure order was issued under Section 6 of the I.G.S.T. in conjunction with Section 129(1) of Central G.S.T., implying that the mention of the wrong provision on the order would not render it invalid. The court noted that U.P.G.S.T. applies to transactions within the state, while I.G.S.T. covers interstate transactions, with Section 20 of I.G.S.T. incorporating the provisions of Central G.S.T. regarding inspection, search, and seizure. Validity of seizure order under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act: The court observed that even if the seizure was deemed to be under Section 129(1) of Central G.S.T., the absence of E-Way bill provisions on the relevant date under Central G.S.T. could render the seizure prima facie illegal. The court directed the respondent to seek instructions and file a counter affidavit within three weeks, listing the matter for admission/final disposal after the submission of the counter affidavit. In the interim, the court ordered the release of the seized goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond and security, excluding cash and bank guarantee, for the proposed tax and penalty on the value of the goods. Applicability of E-Way bill provisions under Central GST and U.P. GST: The court highlighted the provisions related to E-Way bills under the Central G.S.T. and U.P.G.S.T., noting that while a notification mandated E-Way bills for goods in transit within the state of U.P., such requirement did not extend to goods brought from outside the state. The court pointed out that the E-Way bill system was enforced from 1st February 2018, and until then, the documents specified by the government were to be carried with the consignment of goods. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the relevant E-Way bill provisions under both Central G.S.T. and U.P.G.S.T. for goods in transit within the state and from outside the state.
|
