2022 (1) TMI 998 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - valid E-way bill or not - specific contention of the petitioner is that the E-way bill was valid up to 11.59. p.m. on 09.11.2018, however, much prior to the aforesaid time i.e., 11.59 p.m, on 09.11.2018, the goods in question had reached its destination and the driver of the vehicle had fallen asleep and consequently the goods were not unloaded at the destination point - HELD THAT - A perusal of impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority clearly indicate that though the petitioner has contended that he has produced the documents relating to vehicle in question passing through Toll Plaza at Nelamangala at 3.54 p.m on 09.11.2018 itself, the said documents have not been adverted to, much less considered or appreciated by the respondents before passing the impugned orders. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerit on the rival contentions and in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to produce the said documents at Annexures-L M before the Prescribed Authority, to establish his claim that the vehicle and goods had reached the destination point on 09.11.2018 prior to expiry of the E-way bill at 11.59 p.m on 09.11.2018, it is deemed just and proper to set aside the impugned orders and the matter remitted back to respondent No.1 - Prescribed Authority for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law after giving one more opportunity to the petitioner to file additional documents and additional objections if any, and thereafter to proceed and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking writ of certiorari to set aside orders demanding tax and penalty under CGST Act, 2017; Appeal against orders dismissing appeal and confirming Assessing Authority's order; Consideration of evidence regarding E-way bill expiry and goods reaching destination before deadline.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the orders dated 22.01.2020 and 15.11.2018 demanding tax and penalty under the Central GST Acts. The petitioner sold TMT Bars to a buyer and claimed that the goods reached the destination before the E-way bill expiry. The respondent issued a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, seizing the goods and levying tax and penalty despite the petitioner's contention of timely delivery.

2. The petitioner appealed the order dated 15.11.2018, but the Appellate Authority upheld the Assessing Authority's decision. The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that crucial evidence, such as documents showing the vehicle passing through a Toll Plaza before the E-way bill expiry, was not considered by the authorities. The petitioner emphasized that the goods reached the destination point before the deadline.

3. The High Court analyzed the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It noted that the documents proving the vehicle's location before the E-way bill expiry were not adequately considered by the authorities. To ensure fairness, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for re-consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to submit additional documents and objections for a fresh review.

4. In the final order, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders passed by the respondents and remanding the case for re-examination. The Court instructed the Prescribed Authority to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present additional evidence and objections, emphasizing a fair and thorough review process in accordance with the law.