9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 271 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - E-way bill which accompanied the goods had expired before the goods could be delivered and meanwhile the vehicle developed some technical snag - section 130 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is liable to pay SGST CGST as the supply is within the State from Sembudoss Street, Chennai of the supplier to the petitioner at Thuvakudi in Trichy, though the bill has been sent to the petitioner's Head Office/Registered Office in Telungana. The respondent is directed to release the vehicle subject to payment of the applicable SGST and CGST by the petitioner to be treated as deposit. The respondent shall issue appropriate notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why SGST and CGST directed to be deposited should be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned proceedings in Form GST Mov 1 dated 06.11.2021; Seizure of goods and vehicle due to expired E-way bill and technical snag; Liability to pay SGST & CGST for intra-state supply. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned proceedings in Form GST Mov 1 dated 06.11.2021. The petitioner had a unit in Thuvakudi in Trichy and had placed an order from a supplier in Chennai for supply of goods. The supplier had raised a GST invoice for an inter-state supply and consigned the goods to the petitioner's place of business in Trichy, billing the petitioner's Head Office in Telangana. The respondent seized the vehicle due to an expired E-way bill and technical issues. The petitioner argued that the supplier had charged IGST for the inter-state supply. The court noted that the supply was actually intra-state, from Chennai to Trichy, making the petitioner liable to pay SGST & CGST. Consequently, the respondent was directed to release the vehicle upon payment of the applicable SGST and CGST by the petitioner as a deposit. The court directed the respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the SGST and CGST should not be demanded and why a penalty should not be imposed. The amount paid by the petitioner would be treated as a deposit against any confirmed liability by the respondent, with its appropriation subject to the outcome of further proceedings. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, stating no costs were to be incurred. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.
|
