2020 (3) TMI 566 - HC - GST

Levy of IGST or CGST and SGST - grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that while transporting the goods for the purpose of weighing was intercepted by the officials of the State Goods and Service Tax, for the reason that in Ext.P2 Delivery Chelan, instead of IGST inadvertently CGST and SGST was levied - HELD THAT - The writ petition disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to seek the release of the goods and carriage on furnishing of the bank guarantee and other charges as enshrined under Section 129 subject to condition that the adjudicating authority would afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for imposition of the penalty, strictly in accordance with law and till such time, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be encashed. On furnishing the bank guarantee, the goods carriage along with goods may be released forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect levy of CGST and SGST instead of IGST on delivery Chelan.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue direction for release of goods without tax and penalty.
3. Petitioner's apprehension regarding adjudicating authority's action and bank guarantee encashment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised a grievance regarding the interception of goods by State Goods and Service Tax officials due to the inadvertent levy of CGST and SGST instead of IGST on the delivery Chelan. The Court acknowledged the error but stated that it cannot adjudicate on condoning the error. The petitioner was advised to comply with Section 129 of the SGST and IGST Act and seek adjudication by informing the adjudicating authority about the mistake, with the possibility of a minor penalty.

2. The Court deliberated on its jurisdiction to issue a direction for the release of goods without tax and penalty. It was concluded that the Court does not have the writ jurisdiction to decide on condoning the reflected error. However, the petitioner was directed to seek the release of goods and carriage by furnishing a bank guarantee and other charges as per Section 129. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a hearing on penalty imposition, ensuring it is done in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioner expressed concerns about the adjudicating authority's actions and requested that the bank guarantee not be encashed until a hearing is conducted. The Court found this request reasonable and disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to seek the release of goods upon furnishing the bank guarantee and other charges. The bank guarantee would not be encashed until the adjudicating authority conducts a hearing for penalty imposition. Upon furnishing the bank guarantee, the goods carriage, along with the goods, could be released promptly.