9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of goods or services or both cannot be determined under Section (1), the same shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed - the value of the goods in transit is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 declared in an invoice or a bill of supply or a delivery challan in respect of the consignment. Even Section 15 Sub-Section 1 of the Act prescribes that the value of the supply of goods or services shall be the transaction value which should include the amounts as clarified under Section 15(2) and the benefits as contained in Section 15(3). Recourse to Section 15 Sub-Section 4 can be taken only when the value of the supply of goods cannot be determined under Sub-Section 1. In the present case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition allowed by way of remand. - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. For the Petitioner : Bipin Kumar Pandey,Aditya Pandey For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the allegations that petitioner no.1 placed an order for supply of mixed ready-made garments, which were being transported by petitioner no.2. It is stated that on 13.09.2022 the goods while in transit were intercepted and a physical verification report was prepared on 17.09.2022 in form GST MOV-04 and no discrepancy was found in the quantity of the goods in question. It is stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r argues that even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the petitioner is liable, the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act can be attracted in this case and not Section 129(1)(b) of the Act as admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the goods in terms of the invoice issued in favour of the petitioner. He further argues that it is well settled that if the petitioner is either a consignor or a consignee, he has to be treated as a owner of the goods and thus, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act are not invokable as has been done by the department. In view of the said submission, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Riya Traders v. State of U.P. Ors.; Writ Tax No.28 of 2023 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. In view of the submissions as made, this Court is to analyze whether the orders passed against the petitioner are sustainable or not? Section 7 of the Act provides for levy and collection of tax and Chapter IV provides for determination of value of supply. Section 15 of the Act provides for value of taxable supply, Section 15(4) makes it clear that if the value of the supply of goods or services or both cannot be determined under Section (1), the same shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed. In respect of the goods seized while in transit, Rule 138 of Chapter XVI of CGST Rules provides for the valuation; Explanation 2 to the said rules reads as under: Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in view of Explanation 2, Rule 138 read with Section 15(1), the transaction value is the value which is indicated in the invoice. Considering the fact that the petitioner has to be treated as the owner of the goods in view of the law laid down in the case of M/s Margo Brush India (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the orders impugned insofar as it imposes the burden on the petitioner to get the goods released in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act is bad in law. As such, on both the grounds, the impugned orders dated 26.09.2022 and 19.10.2022 cannot be sustained and are set aside. The matter is liable to be remanded to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh orders treating the petitioner to be the owner of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
