2020 (8) TMI 630 - HC - GST

Detention of consignment - Lubricant - stock transfer - consignee was shown as an unregistered person in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods - allegation also that the petitioner had collected CGST and SGST in the delivery challan that was used for stock transfer of the goods - HELD THAT - The petitioner would submit that although the e- way bill showed the consignee as an unregistered person, the invoice that accompanied the transportation clearly referred to the GSTIN of the consignee and hence, the mere mention of the consignee as an unregistered person in the e- way bill cannot be of any significance - Further, petitioner states that the mention of the tax applicable in the delivery challan was by mistake for it is evident that when the goods are stock transferred and not sold, there need not be a payment of tax at all. The reasons for detaining the consignment are not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act. The detention in the instant case cannot, therefore, be seen as justified - the 1st respondent are directed to immediately release the goods and the vehicle covered by detention notice - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Detention of consignment due to discrepancies in e-way bill and collection of CGST and SGST in delivery challan leading to suspicion about the nature of the transaction.

Analysis:
- The petitioner challenged the detention order of a consignment of lubricant oil based on discrepancies in the e-way bill and the collection of CGST and SGST in the delivery challan. The 1st respondent objected to the consignee being listed as an unregistered person in the e-way bill, and the collection of taxes raised suspicions about the transaction.
- The petitioner argued that despite the consignee being unregistered in the e-way bill, the accompanying invoice contained the consignee's GSTIN, rendering the e-way bill discrepancy insignificant. Additionally, the tax mention in the delivery challan was deemed a mistake as tax payment is not required for stock transfers.
- After hearing both parties, the court found the reasons for detention insufficient to invoke Section 129 of the GST Act. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the goods and vehicle covered by the detention notice upon presenting a copy of the judgment to the 1st respondent.
- The court emphasized that the detention was unjustified, allowing the writ petition and instructing the Government Pleader to inform the 1st respondent of the judgment for prompt clearance of the goods and vehicle. The petitioner was required to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the 1st respondent for further action.