2020 (12) TMI 789 - HC - GST

Detention of a consignment of goods - allegation that the consignment was not covered by a valid delivery chalan that was one of the prescribed documents for transportation of exempted goods - HELD THAT - The impugned judgment does not call for any review. It has to be borne in mind that when goods are detained in the course of interstate transportation, the power to detain stems from Section 20 of the IGST Act which makes the provisions of the CGST Act, in relation to offences and penalties, inspection, search, seizure, arrest etc., applicable mutatis mutandis in relation to integrated tax, as if they were enacted under the IGST Act. The 4th proviso to Section 20 of the IGST Act provides that where penalty is leviable under the CGST Act and the SGST Act, the penalty leviable under the IGST Act shall be the sum total of the said penalties. Whether the 4th proviso would be attracted to the detention that was the subject matter of the Writ Petition more so when the transportation involved was of exempted goods? - HELD THAT - It is clear from a reading of provision of Section 129 (1)(b) of the CGST, that when exempted goods are transported inter-state, in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act, the goods and the conveyance used for transportation are liable to detention and can be released on payment of an amount equal to 5% of the value of the goods or 25,000 rupees whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and penalty - In the instant case, it is not in dispute that it was not the owner of the goods, who came forward for the payment of tax and penalty. It is also not in dispute that there was no occasion for payment of any tax and penalty as the goods under transportation were exempted from tax under the IGST Act. The only amount to which the writ petitioner was liable was the amount equal to 5% of the value of the goods or 25000 rupees whichever was less as mandated under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. It has to be borne in mind that in the case of an interstate transaction the applicable statute is the IGST Act and the power of detention is exercised by virtue of the provisions of Section 20 of the IGST Act read with Section 129 of the CGST Act. There is no reference to the provisions of the SGST Act in Section 20 of the IGST Act, save for the mention in the 4th proviso to Section 20. In my view, the 4th proviso would be attracted only in a situation where, in respect of an interstate transaction, there is a liability to pay tax under the IGST Act that includes components of tax under the CGST and SGST Acts or where a penalty based on tax liability is attracted under both of the said enactments - the inference is inescapable that the amount to be collected from a person who is found to have transported exempted goods contrary to the provisions of the IGST Act, can only be such amount as is found payable under the CGST Act since it is the provisions of that Act that are to be deemed as enacted under the IGST Act. In other words, there is no provision that requires one to treat the provisions of the SGST Act as forming part of the IGST Act. Thus, the liability of a person, who is not the owner of the goods, and who has transported exempted goods in contravention of the IGST Act, can only be in an amount equal to 5% of the value of the goods or 25000 rupees whichever is less, as specified under the CGST Act. He cannot be further mulcted with a similar amount under the SGST Act since the provisions of tax and penalty under the SGST Act are not attracted to the inter-state transaction of exempted goods covered by the IGST Act - review petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of judgment regarding detention of goods during interstate transportation.
2. Interpretation of provisions of CGST Act and SGST Act in relation to detention and penalty under IGST Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Review of judgment regarding detention of goods during interstate transportation
The High Court considered a Review Petition filed by the State seeking to review a judgment regarding the detention of a consignment of goods during interstate transportation. The initial judgment found the detention justified due to the consignment not being covered by a valid delivery chalan, which is required for transportation of exempted goods. The petitioner was directed to pay either 5% of the value of the goods or ?25,000 for the release of the goods and the vehicle.

Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of CGST Act and SGST Act in relation to detention and penalty under IGST Act
The State argued in the Review Petition that the petitioner should pay a similar amount under both CGST and SGST Acts, in addition to the amount under the IGST Act, as the tax payment under IGST Act includes components of taxes under both CGST and SGST Acts. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the CGST Act and the IGST Act to determine the correct interpretation in this case.

The Court noted that in cases of interstate transportation of exempted goods, the detention of goods is governed by Section 20 of the IGST Act, which makes provisions of the CGST Act applicable. The 4th proviso to Section 20 states that when penalties are leviable under both CGST and SGST Acts, the penalty under IGST Act shall be the total of penalties under both Acts.

In the present case, the Court interpreted Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act, which specifies the payment required for the release of detained goods during interstate transportation of exempted goods. The Court clarified that the liability of the petitioner, who was not the owner of the goods, was limited to the amount specified in the CGST Act, as the SGST Act provisions were not applicable to interstate transactions of exempted goods under the IGST Act.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the Review Petition, stating that the petitioner's liability was correctly determined under the CGST Act, and there was no need to review the initial judgment.

This detailed analysis clarifies the legal interpretation applied by the High Court in the judgment, addressing the issues raised by the State in the Review Petition.