9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 388 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - non-production of E-Way Bill - HELD THAT - We should not interfere at this stage of show cause notice as the inquiry is in progress. However, considering the fact that when the vehicle was intercepted, the driver was able to produce a valid E-way bill and also the invoice, at least, the goods and the conveyance should be ordered to be released subject to the final outcome of the confiscation. We do not propose to observe anything further as the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties. We dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondent No.2 to release the vehicle and the goods after obtaining a bond of ₹ 11,73,480/- from the writ applicant. Application allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. 2. Issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act. 3. Compliance with Rule 138A of the GST Rules. 4. Allegations of bogus transactions and fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. 5. Release of goods and vehicle pending inquiry. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Detention of Goods and Vehicle under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act The writ applicant challenged the detention order issued under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act dated 02/10/2020. The applicant argued that there was no contravention of any provisions of the GST Act or the Rules. The driver had all necessary documents as per Rule 138A of the GST Rules. The respondent invoked Section 129 for detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit, which the applicant claimed was wrongly applied. Issue 2: Issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act The applicant also contested the Show Cause Notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act, issued on the same date. The notice suggested discrepancies and suspected bogus transactions involving the applicant. The applicant argued that Section 130 could not be invoked for past transactions, especially when the supplier had accepted and paid taxes and penalties for such transactions. The respondent countered that the case involved large-scale fraud with bogus billing and fraudulent ITC claims, warranting the invocation of Section 130. Issue 3: Compliance with Rule 138A of the GST Rules The applicant asserted compliance with Rule 138A, providing all necessary documents during transit. However, the respondent argued that the applicant failed to generate or produce the e-way bill for the purchase of goods from Shiv Shakti Trading Company, thus violating Rule 138A. The respondent presented evidence of past transactions where the applicant had generated e-way bills for purchases from the same supplier, raising suspicion over the current transaction's legitimacy. Issue 4: Allegations of Bogus Transactions and Fraudulent ITC Claims The respondent alleged that the applicant engaged in bogus transactions to fraudulently claim ITC. They highlighted past instances where the applicant's transactions were found suspicious, involving suppliers with questionable billing activities. The respondent provided examples of e-way bills showing improbable transit times, further supporting their claim of fraudulent activities. The applicant's history of making immediate payments to settle past notices also indicated a pattern of evading tax through bogus transactions. Issue 5: Release of Goods and Vehicle Pending Inquiry The court decided not to interfere with the ongoing inquiry at the show cause notice stage but considered the applicant's compliance with producing valid documents during the vehicle's interception. The court directed the release of the goods and vehicle upon obtaining a bond of ?11,73,480/- from the applicant, allowing the inquiry to proceed in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The court partially allowed the writ application, ordering the release of the goods and vehicle subject to the bond, while permitting the continuation of the inquiry regarding the suspected bogus transactions and fraudulent ITC claims. The court refrained from making further observations to avoid prejudicing either party.
|
