9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts customer or dealer at a price lower than the MRP, as such cannot be a ground on which the product or the vehicle could be seized or detained. If at all if this, according to the respondents, is contrary to the law, the authorities are supposed to draw an appropriate proceeding under the law - The Inspecting Authorities for the alleged discrepancy could have only intimated the Assessing Authority for initiating appropriate proceedings. What is more relevant to take note of is the fact that the details in the invoice bill as well as in the e-way bill matched the products found in the vehicle at the time of inspection except for the price of sale. Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy available to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that since the case of the petitioners at the outset itself was that the entire proceedings for detention of the vehicle and the seizure of the goods being in total contravention to the GST law, relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 would not be proper, legal and justified - when this Court also finds that the proceedings of detention and seizure of the goods and the ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as was required under the Act to the authorities concerned. 4. Inspite of the Incharge of the conveyance producing the necessary invoice bill and the e-way bill the respondent authorities seized the vehicle and the goods on the grounds of there being discrepancies in the valuation of the goods and thereafter detained the vehicle and the goods. Subsequently, a notice (Annexure P/4) dated 14.01.2020 FORM GST MOV-07 under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 was issued to the person Incharge of the conveyance i.e. the driver. Immediately, thereafter the petitioners moved an application for release of the vehicle vide their response dated 17.01.2020. Without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the said reply to the notice, the respondents have passed the impugned order (Annexure P/1) whereby they have assessed the tax payable on the goods as also the penalty applicable on the said assessment made for the purpose of releasing of the goods and the vehicle. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. The contention of the petitioners primarily is that when a transport vehicle is intercepted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 129 to which the petitioners also submitted their reply on 17.01.2020 and since the reply of the petitioners were not convincing, satisfactory or acceptable, the respondent authorities have passed the order under Section 129. The contention of the petitioners is that the impugned order under Section 129 is one which is appealable under Section 107, therefore the writ petition for this reason itself is not maintainable. The State counsel on instructions submits that as regards the discrepancy it has been informed that the price at which product was sold to the customer was not matching the MRP of the product, which reflected in the packet transported. The second ground raised by the respondents is that subject to the compliance of the order (Annexure P/1), the respondent authorities would release the goods and the vehicle seized and detained by the respondents and thus prayed for the rejection of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, some of the undisputed rather admitted positions from the submissions made on behalf of either side is that the petitioners are in the business of manufacturing of Pan Masala an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court of Kerela in the case of Alfa Group v. Assistant State Tax Officer (2020) 113 taxmann.com 222 (Kerela) in an identical set of facts has held as under: On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that none of the reasons stated in Ext. P2 order justify detention of the goods. There is no provision under the GST Act which mandates that the goods shall not be sold at prices below the MRP declared thereon. Further, there is nothing in Ext. P2 order that shows that, on account of the alleged wrong classification of the goods there was any difference in the rate of tax that was adopted by the assessee. In my view when the statutory scheme of the GST Act is such as to facilitate a free movement of goods, after self assessment by the assessees concerned, the respondents cannot resort to an arbitrary and statutorily unwarranted detention of goods in the course of transportation. Such action on the part of department officers can erode public confidence in the system of tax administration in our country and, as a consequence, the country's economy itself. Under such circumstances, I quash Ext. P2 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
