The Allahabad High Court set aside the seizure of goods transported and held that unlike the Value Added Tax Act, 2008, there is no specific provision in the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which requires assesses to declare the route of transportation/ transit of goods.
Mr. Aditya Pandey appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar appeared for the respondents.
M/S Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar, the petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in trading of Bidi, Matchbox, Tobacco, etc. In the normal course of business, the petitioner received an order for a supply of bidi and matchbox from M/s Satish Chand Shelendra Kumar, Karahal Road, Mainpuri and from M/s Pawani Provisions Store, G.T. Road Chhibramau, Kannauj.
The petitioner prepared the Tax invoice as well as the E-way bill. The said goods were loaded on Truck no. UP 76 K 5205 for transportation from Bewar Mainpuri to Karahal Mainpuri and Chhibramau, Kannauj.
During the onward journey, when the goods were in transit, the same was intercepted and on the production of documents i.e. tax invoice and e-way bills, form GST MOV-1 was prepared on 17.1.2020, on the statement of the driver of the vehicle, the seizure/ detention order in form GST MOV-06 was passed on 17.1.2020.
Thereafter form GST MOV 07 was passed and being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner GST MOV-09 dated 17.1.2020 was passed under Section 129 (3) of the UP GST Act. Thereafter the petitioner immediately deposited the amount of Rs. 2,36,304.68/- under protest as demanded by respondent no. 2.
The petitioner has submitted that the goods in question were accompanied by genuine documents such as tax invoices and e-way bills and were on their onward journey to their final destination but the same was wrongly been intercepted and the vehicle was seized and thereafter penalty was imposed on the ground that driver of the vehicle, at the time of interception, has produced only one tax invoice and e-way bill whereas the documents about other item were not produced.
He further submitted that it had wrongly been mentioned that the truck driver had stated that the goods were to be unloaded in Mainpuri itself in the garb of accompanying documents. He further submits that the said fact is incorrect as the statement of the truck driver has been recorded in GST MOV-01.
It was alleged that the goods along with the truck were not on the route to their destination, therefore, there was an intention to evade tax. Under the GST Act, there is no specific provision which allows the selling dealer to disclose the route to be taken during the transportation of goods or while goods are in transit however there was a provision under the VAT Act to disclose the route during transportation of goods to reach its final destination.
The power of detention, as well as seizure, can be exercised only when the goods are not accompanied by the genuine documents provided under the Act. The genuineness of the documents has not been disputed at any stage.
A single bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition with the cost of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) which shall be paid to the petitioner by the State within 15 days.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
