9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 704 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith vehicle - e-way bill-01 has not been produced along with other documents - Held that - After issuance of notification no. 177 dated 06.02.2018, the notification no.138 dated 30.01.2018 was rescinded which made effective notification no.1359 (4th Amendment) to GST Rules, 2017 with effect from 01.02.2018. The goods were coming from Ahmadabad and are to be delivered at Meerut. Both the parties situated at Ahmadabad and Meerut are registered with their respective Assessing Authority. Goods were accompanied with all the requisite documents including Gujarat e-way bill dated 21.03.2018, therefore, there was no ground to hold that the goods were coming in contravention of the provision of GST Act/Rule and the intention of the petitioner was to evade the payment of Tax - the order of seizure passed by the respondent no.4 is wholly illegal, arbitrary as such, is clearly against the intention of the legislature. The penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner are the consequential to the seizure proceedings and once the seizure proceedings are quashed/set aside, the consequential proceedings are also liable to be set aside. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of seizure memo under Section 129(1) UPGST Act 2. Validity of notices issued under Section 129(3) UPGST Act 3. Validity of Commissioner Circular No.2899 dated 06.02.2018 4. Power of Commissioner to issue circulars 5. Interpretation of UPGST Rules and notifications Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure memo dated 25.03.2018 under Section 129(1) UPGST Act. The petitioner's goods were seized by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, on the grounds of non-production of e-way bill-01 during interception. The court found the seizure to be illegal and arbitrary as the goods were accompanied by necessary documents, including a Gujarat e-way bill, and there was no evidence of tax evasion. Consequently, the court quashed the seizure memo. 2. The court also examined the validity of the notices issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, demanding a bank guarantee for the release of seized goods. Given the illegality of the seizure, the court held that the penalty proceedings initiated were consequential to the seizure and thus set aside the notices issued under Section 129(3). 3. The validity of Commissioner Circular No.2899 dated 06.02.2018 was questioned by the petitioner. The circular aimed to revive a previously rescinded notification, which the petitioner argued was ultra vires to the UPGST Act and Rules 2017. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the Commissioner lacked the authority to issue circulars that contravened the Act or rules. The circular was deemed invalid. 4. The power of the Commissioner to issue instructions or circulars was extensively discussed. The court emphasized that the Commissioner cannot usurp the legislative function by issuing instructions contrary to the provisions of the Act or rules. The court held that the circular in question did not have the power to revive a rescinded notification and declared it ultra vires. 5. The interpretation of UPGST Rules and notifications played a crucial role in the judgment. The court analyzed various notifications and rule amendments to determine the validity of e-way bills and TDFs. It was established that certain notifications had been rescinded, rendering the e-way bills and TDFs invalid. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the amended rules and notifications in such cases. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, finding the seizure and penalty proceedings to be illegal and arbitrary. The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with amended rules and notifications under the UPGST Act.
|
