9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 35 - HC - GSTDetention of Consignment invoices - the driver of the truck by negligence failed to carry the invoices showing the transaction between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent - Section 129 of GST Act - HELD THAT - This court would not be an appropriate authority to adjudicate the controversy to either of the human error or intentional or willful. It would be the domain of the adjudicating authority - For the time being, the goods detained can be released, subject to the compliance of conditions referred to in Sec.129(1) of the Act and Rule 43 of 2017. In case the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee along with other charges, as per the provisions of Sec.129, on deposit of the requisite Bank Guarantee, the goods and the vehicle detained are ordered to be released; subject to the outcome of the controversy by adjudicating authority.
Issues:
Detention of consignment invoices covered by Ext.P-1 and P-2 by the respondents. Analysis: The petitioner, a private limited company, engaged a transporter to collect goods from Gujarat for delivery in Kerala based on a purchase order from the 3rd respondent. Two tax invoices were raised for the consignments, with delivery intended at Kollam. However, the driver failed to carry the necessary invoices during transportation, leading to detention orders Ext.P8 and P9 due to defective documents. The petitioner argues this was a human error as the E-Way bill indicated delivery at Kollam, making the detention under Sec.129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act unsustainable. The government pleader, Dr. Thushara James, cites Sec.129 of the GST Act, stating that goods are liable to be detained in case of any violation. The court refrains from adjudicating on whether the detention was due to human error or intentional action, deeming it the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The court orders the release of the detained goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and other charges as per Sec.129 and Rule 43 of 2017. The release is subject to the outcome of the controversy determined by the adjudicating authority, with a directive that the respondents should not encash the bank guarantee until the issue is resolved.
|
