2025 (1) TMI 1427 - HC - GST

Detention of vehicle - absence of necessary documentation during the transportation of goods - initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notices issued under Section 130 of the CGST/ SGST Act 2017 were received only after the date prescribed for hearing in order to hasten the matter this Court should be fixing a date on which the petitioner shall appear and adjudication proceedings be completed. Hence there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to complete the proceedings initiated under Section 130 of the CGST/ SGST Act 2017 as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on 29.01.2025 and before the 2nd respondent on 30.01.2025. On their appearance the respondents 1 and 2 shall hear the respective matters and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible at any rate within ten days from the said date of appearance. Petition disposed off.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are as follows:

Whether the detention of the petitioner's vehicles under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 was justified due to the absence of necessary documentation during the transportation of goods.
Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 for confiscation of goods was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the detained vehicles and goods pending the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Detention under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 provides for the detention of goods and conveyances in transit if they are found without the requisite documents, such as e-way bills and invoices.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the absence of e-way bills and invoices when the vehicles were intercepted justified the detention under Section 129. The lack of documentation raised doubts about the legitimacy of the transportation.
Key Evidence and Findings: The vehicles were transporting industrial kerosine without any supporting documents, which led to their detention.
Application of Law to Facts: The absence of e-way bills and invoices was a clear violation of the statutory requirements, warranting detention under Section 129.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued for provisional release, but the Court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions before such release could be considered.

Proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 130 deals with the confiscation of goods and conveyances for contravention of the Act's provisions.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 was appropriate given the absence of documentation and the doubts raised about tax evasion.
Key Evidence and Findings: Notices for confiscation had been issued, indicating the seriousness of the contravention.
Application of Law to Facts: The lack of documentation and the potential for tax evasion justified the proceedings under Section 130.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's contention regarding the late receipt of notices was considered, leading to the Court's directive for expedited adjudication.

Provisional Release of Detained Vehicles and Goods

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Provisional release can be considered upon payment of applicable fines, as per the statute.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court highlighted the importance of concluding proceedings swiftly to avoid prejudice due to prolonged detention of goods.
Key Evidence and Findings: The goods in question were industrial kerosine, and their prolonged detention was not beneficial.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court directed a time-bound completion of proceedings to facilitate potential release.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court balanced the need for compliance with statutory processes against the potential harm from prolonged detention.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the necessity of adhering to statutory requirements for documentation during the transportation of goods under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court directed the respondents to conclude the proceedings under Section 130 expeditiously, setting specific dates for the petitioner to appear and for the adjudication to be completed within ten days thereafter.
Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Retaining the industrial kerosine for long would cause serious prejudice and would not benefit any person." This underscores the Court's concern for timely resolution.