2022 (2) TMI 1003 - HC - GST

Validity of Conduct of GST officer - Order of Suspension - Seizure and detention of goods - mismatch of documents - tax invoice and the E-way pass for vehicle, not produced - petitioner states that the Officer had every authority to re-assess the matter if he had found that there was some error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shows that the appeal could have filed by the assessee. The Court would like to know as to why action could not have been taken under Section 161 when there was definitely an error which was apparently there, namely, the details of the owners which were produced by the drivers were different from the details available on the GST portal - Place this petition as fresh on 25.2.2022.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and detention of vehicles for lack of tax invoice and E-way pass.
2. Imposition of tax and penalty by the Officer.
3. Discrepancy between documents shown by the Driver and GST records.
4. Applicability of Section 161 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
5. Requirement of informing superiors for filing appeals under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the seizure and detention of vehicles, including Truck No. UP 23 AT 1745, for not having a tax invoice and E-way pass while traveling from Moradabad to Delhi. The Officer imposed tax and penalty on the vehicles, including Truck No. UP 23 AT 1745, for non-compliance.

2. The Officer imposed a tax of &8377;73,236/- and a penalty of 100% on the vehicle. Subsequently, penalties were imposed on other trucks as well. The Officer later discovered a variance between the documents shown by the Driver and the GST records, leading to further penalties being imposed.

3. The discrepancy between the documents presented by the Driver and the GST records was a crucial point of contention in the case. The Officer found that the details provided by the drivers did not match the information available on the GST portal, prompting additional penalties.

4. The debate arose regarding the Officer's authority to take action under Section 161 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Officer believed he had the power to reassess the situation if there was an apparent error, such as the discrepancy in the presented documents and the GST records.

5. The issue of whether the Officer should have informed his superiors to file appeals under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, instead of taking action under Section 161 was raised. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that the Officer should have followed a different procedure, indicating a potential procedural error.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the complexities surrounding the seizure and detention of vehicles, imposition of tax and penalties, discrepancies in documents, and the correct application of relevant sections of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court requested further clarification on the actions taken by the Officer and directed the filing of a short affidavit for review on a specified date.