2020 (2) TMI 1158 - HC - GST

Demand of GST, penalty and confiscation of goods - detention of vehicles / trailers - Purchase and movement of Cranes from another state - default related to E-way Bill - Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 - allegation of violation of Section 129 (3) and (6) for the consequential initiation of confiscation proceedings after expiry of fourteen days - HELD THAT - The controversy involved in the present case assailing the impugned notices cannot be adjudicated at this stage of the matter, particularly when the petitioner has already submitted reply. The aforementioned reply is not a routine reply but backed by relevant provisions and circulars as mentioned above, which is required to be considered dispassionately and in a pragmatic manner - on the merits of the matter, it is not commented, as it may have a far reaching effect in respect of any adjudication. It is being clarified that in the kind of a transaction referred to therein and involved in the present case, there is no question of any supply and thus applicability of the GST would, in such circumstances, be not as already observed without being examined by the authorities who issued the notices and the appellate authorities if any. The petitioner is directed to submit a bank guarantee in terms of the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act for release of the vehicle. However, that would be without prejudice and subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the adjudicating authority - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act for detention of goods; Compliance with e-way bill requirements; Interpretation of circular exempting certain goods from IGST; Detention of goods under Section 129 of the Act; Adjudication of tax and penalty eligibility; Prima facie view on the controversy; Requirement of bank guarantee for release of goods.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a Public Limited Company executing work contracts with Cochin Shipyard, contested the initiation of proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The detention of goods was based on the transporter's failure to complete Part A of the e-way bill electronically, leading to interception and retention of trailers in Kochi. The petitioner argued that the detention should not have been under Section 129 but possibly under Section 122 for minor penalties. The petitioner also highlighted circulars exempting certain goods from IGST, emphasizing no tax or penalty eligibility for such goods.

2. The petitioner emphasized compliance with e-way bill rules and the transporter's obligation to fill Part A details. Reference was made to circulars exempting specific goods from IGST. The petitioner's submission contended that the detention of goods was not justified under Section 129 but possibly under Section 122 for minor penalties. Despite replies to notices and representations submitted, no adjudication had taken place by the Commissioner.

3. The Revenue argued for the detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, asserting that any violation of the Act would lead to detention, seizure, and potential confiscation of goods. The Revenue urged the Court to dismiss the writ petition based on the non obstante clause in Section 129(1).

4. Upon hearing both parties, the Court refrained from adjudicating the controversy at that stage, noting the petitioner's detailed replies supported by relevant provisions and circulars. The Court emphasized the need for a dispassionate consideration of the matter. The Court refrained from commenting further on the merits to avoid influencing any future adjudication.

5. The Court referenced circulars exempting certain goods from IGST and clarified that in transactions where there is no supply involved, GST applicability would not arise. The Court directed the petitioner to submit a bank guarantee as per Section 129 for the release of the vehicles, pending further decision by the adjudicating authority. If the bank guarantee was furnished within a week, the seized trailers and goods would be released in accordance with the law, disposing of the writ petition.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, including challenges to detention under Section 129, compliance with e-way bill requirements, interpretation of circulars exempting goods from IGST, and the Court's directions regarding the release of detained goods.