2022 (9) TMI 211 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - goods transported without E-way bill - Section 129 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Considering the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the three orders which are impugned, the authorities were of the impression that the goods were being transported without E-Way bill and thus, an assessment was arrived at to come out with a figure of 200% of the tax payable on such goods. The appeal against the said order has been dismissed. The matter requires consideration - Considering the submissions made at the Bar, as an interim measure, it is provided that goods of the petitioner shall be released on his paying half of the amount demanded i.e. half of Rs.61,76,793/-. For the other half, the petitioner shall submit a indemnity bond as security. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order under Section 129(3)(a) of the CGST Act, dismissal of appeal, determination of goods' valuation, authority to determine value, justification of demand, transportation without E-Way bill, assessment based on tax payable, interim release of goods.

The judgment by the Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., involves a challenge to an order passed under Section 129(3)(a) of the CGST Act and the U.P. G.S.T. Act, as well as the dismissal of the appeal by the petitioner. The petitioner was accused of transporting goods without an E-Way bill, leading to the detention and seizure of the goods. The Adjudicating Authority estimated a demand of Rs.61,76,793 against the petitioner under Section 129(3)(a) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the authorities lacked the power to determine the goods' valuation at the time of release and contended that the value on the tax invoice should be considered correct unless a valuation determination process is initiated. Moreover, the petitioner claimed that the tax payment had not been determined, thus challenging the justification of the demand.

The authorities concluded that the goods were transported without an E-Way bill, leading to an assessment resulting in a demand equivalent to 200% of the tax payable on the goods. Despite the petitioner's submissions, the appeal against the order was dismissed. The court deemed the matter requiring further consideration and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within three weeks, followed by a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. As an interim measure, the court ordered the release of the petitioner's goods upon payment of half of the demanded amount and submission of an indemnity bond for the remaining half, facilitating the immediate release of the goods upon compliance with the specified conditions.