9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter called as "Agent"), by virtue of agreement dated 10.12.2012, to procure orders and handle logistics. The said agreement subsist as on date. 2.2 On July 18, 2024, the petitioner sent gold ornaments weighing 11,835.16 grams, valued at Rs.8.37 Crores, to the Agent with returnable delivery challans. The Agent displayed the jewellery across Tamil Nadu, including at M/s. Bhima Jewellery, to solicit feedback before transporting the goods to Chennai. 2.3 Further, he would submit that the only intention of the petitioner was to display the jewellery at exhibition, where the re-sellers will participate and interact with the petitioner, which may possibly result in them placing orders with the petitioner. 2.4 On 25.07.2024, the goods were moved from the Agents to Bhima Jewellery, Madurai, to display the goods and invite them for IIJS Show, which was scheduled to be conducted at Mumbai during the month of August, 2024. 2.5 On July 26, 2024, while returning to Chennai, the transport vehicle was stopped by the local police near Panruti and the gold ornaments were seized. After seizure of the gold ornaments, the statement of one Mr. Jayakrishnan was recorded in Form GST MOV-01 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "insurance policy"] with IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd., from 30.11.2023. However, the Agent does not hold any valid insurance at the time of interception of goods. c) The insurance taken by the petitioner cannot be extended to the agent. d) The Agent has not used the three logistics firms with whom the petitioner has contracts for moving consignments and the agent ought to have moved the consignment only through the three logistics firms and the reason for not doing so are not explained. e) No supporting documents were submitted during detention as well as during enquiry. f) There is no packing list for the goods moved. g) The delivery challans issued by the petitioner were held by Mr. S. Sridharan and Karthick who are staff of the agent. h) The delivery challans do not contain any description of goods, quantity, weight, value, vehicle details, etc. i) The petitioners have not given any evidence of restrictions of usage of seal to show that the ornaments having seal with "MR/MA" belong to the peittioner. j) The movement of goods to Cuddalore is suspicious as the goods have moved away from the route to Chennai and the reasons are inexplicable. k) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to furnish security in accordance with Section 129 (1) (c) of the GST Acts for the release of goods. 2.11 Further, he would contend that Section 129 of the TNGST Act starts with a non-obstante clause and thus, overrides Section 130 of the TNGST Act. 2.12 That apart, in this case, the respondent was supposed to pass orders under Section 129 of the TNGST Act, within a period of 7 days as contemplated in the Act, however, without passing of any such order, the confiscation notice was issued under Section 130 of the Act, which is beyond the scope of the law as well as the Act and Rules. 2.13 Further, he would contend that in this case, there was no sale or supply and the goods were transported for the purpose of showcasing alone and hence, there is no prima facie materials for the purpose of issuance of impugned confiscation notice. He would also contend that the provisions of Section 130 of the TNGST Act may be invoked only if the goods were moved for the purpose of sale or supply. However, in the case on hand, the said provisions of the Act were wrongly invoked by the Officials. Therefore, he requests this Court to quash the impugned notice dated 02.08.2024. In support of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pretext of showcasing the gold for the purpose of inviting the buyers for the exhibition, which is scheduled to be held at Mumbai during the month of August, 2024. The suspicion of the Department with regard to the evading of tax stands confirmed with the materials, information and evidences, which were collected during the course of inspection conducted at the business premises of the petitioner by Chennai-01 (Intelligence) Officials on the following aspects: i) During the inspection of Business Place of Tvl. Mukti Gold Private Limited at Chennai no stock of Gold was present. ii) The Business had no cash. The lockers were found to be empty. The tax payer is having more than hundred crores turnover and such a stock/ cash situations is dubious. iii) A notice was displayed outside the Business place that it is closed for 26.07.24 to 29.7.24 for which no valid reason was given by the Staff. The Business place was opened by Manager on 27.07.24 and inspections were commenced. iv) There were many carbon papers for which second copies were not traceable at the business place. v) One of the staff Thiru. Saurabh turned up only last day with the Gold. It was informed that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Tax (GST and Income Tax). Therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the present petition. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 5. It was contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the goods were transported to its Agent only for the displaying purpose, so as to invite its customers for Exhibition, which was scheduled to be held at Mumbai in the month of August, 2024. The petitioner has also received an invitation for the said Exhibition on 27.07.2024. 6. In this case, the goods were transported only with the delivery challan. If the goods were transported for any purpose other than sale or supply, the same can be transported with the delivery challan and no eway bill is necessary for such transportation in terms of the provisions of Rule 138 (4) read with Rule 55 of the CGST Rules and there is no dispute on this aspect. 7. However, it was contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of gold worth about 11.990 kg was transported, no details with regard to the description of gold ornaments were available in the delivery challan and merely it was stated as "new gold ornaments 22 Charat HSN Code 71131940". It was also found by the Officials that there was a little different in the quantity of gold as mentioned in the invoice and as per the report of the Government Officials. 13. Immediately, the Goods Detention Notice was issued on 26.07.2024 along with the Form GST MOV 02, Form GST MOV-06 and Form GST MOV-07. In such case, the petitioner ought to have proved the veracity of their statements, that their real intention is only to showcase the gold to their customers, by way of filing a detailed reply along with appropriate documents. However, no such reply has been filed and no documentary evidence has been furnished for the satisfaction of the Officials. 14. In the gold ornaments, the seal with "MR/MA" is used. However, there was no evidence to prove that the said seal with "MR/MA" belongs to the petitioner. Further, no evidence has been shown to the Officials with regard to the restrictions of usage of seal with "MR/MA". 15. Further, though the petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 130, since Section 129 only talks about the seizure of the goods and not about confiscation. Thus, both these Sections are independent in nature. 21. In the judgment of Synergy Fertichem, it has been held that any opinion of the authority to be formed is not subject to objective test. The purpose of invoking Section 130 of the Act at the very threshold, the authorities need to make out a very strong case. Merely on suspicion, the authorities may not be justified in invoking Section 130 of the Act straightway. In this case, the officials had formed clear cut prima facie opinion to make out a very strong case in their favour for issuing notice under Section 130 of the TNGST Act. 22. In Anant Jignesh Shah case, the show cause notice was issued on an assumption that the driver of the vehicle might have indulged in the past in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, for which, the Court has held that the entire basis for issuance of said show cause notice is conjectures and surmise. However, in the present case, it is not that only on the ground that the petitioner diverted the regular route but also on many other ground, based on which, the respondent formed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
