2019 (4) TMI 148 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - eway bill was not matching - issuance of FORM GST MOV-06 - Section 129(1) of CGST Act - Held that - The grounds urged by the petitioner being mixed questions of facts and law, the appeal has been rightly preferred by the petitioner and the same is pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority. 10% of the disputed tax/penalty amount is already deposited by the petitioner - In such circumstances, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in earth moving services, challenged a seizure order passed by respondent No.4 under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner generated an e-way bill for a work order from 20.11.2018 to 31.01.2019, but the vehicle was intercepted on 4.2.2019 due to a mismatch in the e-way bill. The respondent No.4 issued an order of detention and a notice under Section 129(3) directing the petitioner to pay a penalty of ?5,76,000. The petitioner appealed against this order, paid 10% of the disputed penalty, and requested the release of the vehicle pending appeal.

The petitioner argued that the transaction was not taxable under the Act and provided a correct e-way bill to the respondent No.4, which was not considered. The petitioner sought release of the goods and conveyance, emphasizing that seizure would lead to work order cancellations. The respondent No.4 failed to follow a Circular by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, leading to the seizure order.

The Revenue, represented by counsel Sri.Vikram Huilgol, justified the impugned order, stating that the Appellate Authority should examine the mismatch in the e-way bill. The Revenue discouraged the parallel proceedings of filing a writ petition while an appeal was pending.

The Court considered the arguments and material on record. It noted that the petitioner's goods and conveyance were detained contrary to Circular instructions. As the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the Court directed the Authority to expedite the disposal of the appeal within two weeks. The petitioner was granted liberty to inspect and maintain the detained excavator and conveyance until their release.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the Appellate Authority to adjudicate the appeal promptly, emphasizing the petitioner's right to maintain the detained property until release.