2018 (5) TMI 696 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods - penalty u/s 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - failure to produce Transit Declaration Form-I - Held that - on account of absence of any notification by the Central Government under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in view of incorrect application of notification issued by the State Government under Rule, 138 of UPGST Rules, on the date of incident Form TDF-I or any other Form was not required in the case of inter-state movements of goods - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure order and penalty notice under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act, 2017.
Interpretation of the necessity of Transit Declaration Form-I for inter-state transportation.
Validity of seizure order and penalty notice.
Applicability of GST Tribunal's establishment on the legal recourse available.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, contested a seizure order and penalty notice issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The goods and vehicle were intercepted in District Agra during transit from Nashik, Maharashtra to Fareedabad, Haryana. The petitioner argued that all necessary documents, including IGST invoice, Goods Receipts, and E-way bill, were in order, displaying the IGST charges correctly. The seizure was based on the absence of Transit Declaration Form-I, which the petitioner contended was unnecessary for inter-state transactions. Despite later producing the form, the penalty notice was still issued.

An appeal to the Additional Commissioner upheld the seizure, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the absence of a GST Tribunal. The Court referenced a prior case with similar circumstances, where it was established that Form TDF-I was not mandatory for inter-state goods movement due to the lack of relevant notifications under CGST and UPGST Rules. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle while annulling the penalty proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the legality of the seizure order and penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, emphasizing the unnecessary requirement of Transit Declaration Form-I for inter-state transportation based on established legal precedents. The decision highlighted the absence of specific notifications mandating the form and underscored the petitioner's compliance with all other essential documentation. The ruling, in line with previous jurisprudence, granted relief to the petitioner by overturning the seizure and penalty, reflecting a consistent interpretation of the law in such cases.