9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For the State Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G. Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A. ORDER 1. Since the facts and grounds raised in both these writ petitions and the dates also being identical and the impugned orders also being same, both these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents for the purpose of release of the vehicle carrying goods belonging to the petitioners from the manufacturing centers to the dealer. 3. The relevant facts, which are relevant for the adjudication of the present dispute is that the petitioners are the limited companies under the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so perishable and it has its own shelf life. It was further contended that in case if the goods are not immediately released, the petitioners shall be put to substantial irrecoverable loss for no fault of theirs. It was lastly contended by the petitioners that the plain reading of the notice under Section 129 issued vide Annexure P/4 and the order passed by the respondents (Annexure P/1) would clearly reveal that there is no specific details of the evasion of tax as such reflected from the notice except for a bald allegation of discrepancy in valuation. 7. The State counsel on the contrary opposing the petition submits that it is a case where during the course of inspection of the conveyance, the Inspecting Agencies found discrepancies in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments of goods were transported to the consumer at Raipur and the product was being transported on a Maxi Truck Plus 1.2 TPS bearing registration No. CG 04 ME 3494. The said vehicle belonged to the Shyam Transport Company. The vehicle was being driven by the Driver Shanker Yadav. What is further to be seen is that undisputedly when the vehicle was subjected to inspection, the person Incharge of the conveyance i.e. the driver had with him the invoice bill duly issued which matched the quantity found in the vehicle. In addition, the driver also was in possession of the e-way bill duly generated and which also was posted in the Web portal of the Department, which again had the details of the consignment and also the details of the tax paid and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of inspection except for the price of sale. 11. The 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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. More particularly when this Court also finds that the proceedings of detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle by the respondents is without any authority of law. 14. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that under valuation of a good in the invoice cannot be a ground for detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. In v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
