2024 (9) TMI 1216 - HC - GST

Refund of penal amount/amounts paid - goods seized on the ground that the movement of goods were not accompanied by proper documents - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in KAVERI ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2017 (12) TMI 1781 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT would show that the Division Bench had considered the very same contentions and had negatived the said contentions. There are no reason to differ from the view taken by the Division Bench and are in respectful agreement with the ratio set out in the said order. The question of whether the movement of goods of the petitioners herein would amount to a proper movement of goods which would not attract any penal action or payment of tax shall be determined by applying the guideline such as wherever e-way bills/tax invoice/delivery challan of the originating State is produced the movement of goods shall be treated as bona fide movement of goods and it would not attract any penal action/tax/penalty under the GST regime. The petition is disposed off subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues: Refund of penal amounts paid by petitioners for seized goods transported without proper documents under GST regime.

In this judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the court addressed the issue of whether the penal amounts paid by the petitioners for goods seized by Commercial Tax Authorities, due to lack of proper documents during transportation in the GST regime, should be refunded. The transition from the earlier sales tax regime to the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 led to confusion regarding the documents required for the movement of goods. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 24.07.2017, allowing intrastate and interstate movement of goods with e-way bills. Despite lacking e-way bills, the petitioners had other proof of title and purchase. Tax authorities detained goods for non-compliance with G.O. Ms. No. 309, leading to detention and confiscation orders. The petitioners challenged these actions through writ petitions before the High Court.

A Division Bench of the High Court set guidelines to determine the legitimacy of goods movement under the GST regime. The petitioners argued that this interim order should be treated as final for the writ petitions' disposal. However, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioners should have been aware of the G.O.s and obtained e-way bills. The court, after reviewing the Division Bench's order, agreed with its findings and directives. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directions.

The court directed the authorities to determine if the goods movement by petitioners was proper under the guidelines. The petitioners could submit additional documents to prove bona fide movement. They were given two weeks to provide further evidence. The authorities were instructed to decide on the refund of amounts paid by petitioners within six weeks. No costs were awarded, and pending petitions were closed. The judgment clarified the requirements for goods movement under the GST regime and provided a framework for assessing the legitimacy of such movements to decide on refund claims.