2018 (9) TMI 1259 - HC - GST

Seizure Order - Section 129 (1) of the Act - detention of goods on the ground that the goods against the bilty no. 226158 dated 27.03.2018 related to 131 boxes also accompanying the documents related to 81 boxes of the same party M/s Ahuja Radio which are to be delivered at Ranchi, Jharkhand and that the e-way bill has been generated on 27.02.2018 for delivery through other vehicle no. HR-38W-2581 - Held that - It is on account of human error, the invoice related to goods to be transported from Delhi to Jharkhand related to 81 boxes has been mistakenly handed over to the goods transported from Delhi to Patna. There is no finding recorded by the seizing authority that except the said mistake the transaction in question was not found bonafide. There is no requirement of TDF Form-I for the purpose of moment of goods through the State of U.P. The requirement of TDF-I is not essential after the introduction of UPGST/CGST laws. The respondent no.4 is directed to release the goods in favour of the petitioner on furnishing of the indemnity bond to the extend of tax assessed by the respondent no.4 - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Seizure order under UPGST Act due to mistaken documentation leading to detention of goods and vehicle.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seizure Order and Mistaken Documentation:
The petitioner, a transporter, filed a writ petition against the seizure order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Gautambudh Nagar. The petitioner's vehicle and goods were seized due to a mistake in documentation. The consignment was to be delivered to Patna, Bihar, and Ranchi, Jharkhand, with invoices clearly indicating IGST @ 18%. However, a mistake led to the wrong documents being enclosed for delivery at Ranchi instead of Patna. The seizing authority detained the goods and passed the seizure order under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act.

2. Legal Analysis of Mistake:
The High Court analyzed the situation and found that the error was a human mistake by the petitioner's office personnel. It was noted that there was no mala fide intent behind the error, and the transporter was registered and had a national permit. The Court observed that the requirement of Transit Declaration Form-I (TDF-I) was not essential under the UPGST/CGST laws for the movement of goods within the State of U.P. The petitioner participated in the proceedings, and it was established that both the transporter and the seller were genuine persons/dealers.

3. Court's Decision and Order:
After considering the submissions and documents, the Court directed the respondent to release the goods upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond for the tax assessed. The Court ordered the immediate release of the goods and the vehicle related to the correct invoice that was mistakenly seized. The writ petition was disposed of, granting relief to the petitioner based on the understanding of the mistake and the genuine nature of the transaction.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in this case revolved around rectifying a genuine mistake in documentation that led to the seizure of goods and a vehicle under the UPGST Act. The Court's decision focused on the lack of mala fide intent, the participation of the genuine parties involved, and the procedural aspects under the GST laws, ultimately resulting in the release of the goods and vehicle to the petitioner.