The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime was introduced in 2017 as a means to unify the tax structure in India.The regime mandates adherence to strict compliance norms during the transportation of goods, including the carrying of appropriate documentation such as tax invoices and e-Way Bills.
Any deviation from the preconceived plan, including allegations of taking a “wrong route” or “wrong destination” may lead to the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) or detention of goods under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Understanding the legal framework, procedural requirements, and judicial precedents concerning these allegations and their applicability is crucial for businesses and stakeholders.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
A GST notice is typically issued when goods in transit are intercepted by authorities and found to have deviated from the declared route or destination. Such deviations may be flagged by inspecting officers as indicative of potential tax evasion practices. However, several practical scenarios like road diversions, lack of familiarity with routes, or driver errors may result in such deviations without any malintent.
Upon interception, the inspecting officer may issue a detention notice under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The notice may demand tax and penalty, citing the alleged contravention. The business entity is then required to respond to the notice, justifying the reasons for the deviation and requesting the release of goods if all documents are in order.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
Section 129 of the CGST Act governs the detention and release of goods in transit. This section allows authorities to detain goods if they believe that there has been a contravention of the Act. However, the provision does not explicitly empower authorities to detain goods solely based on route or destination discrepancies.
These notices primarily impact businesses engaged in the supply of goods across states or within a state. Transporters, logistics companies, and consignees are equally affected since detention may lead to business disruptions, penalties, and reputational harm. The monetary burden includes tax and penalty payments and are often accompanied by costs to contest the notice.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
Courts across India have addressed the legality of detentions based on route or destination discrepancies. Key judgments have clarified that mere deviations without evidence of tax evasion are not sufficient grounds for detention. Notable cases include:
Under Section 129 of the CGST Act, goods can be released upon payment of applicable tax and penalty. For taxable goods, the penalty is equal to the tax amount. Non-payment of the penalty may lead to confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. Repeated violations can attract additional scrutiny and stringent legal consequences.
Become a PF & ESIC expert with our comprehensive course – Enroll Now
Businesses should ensure meticulous compliance with GST laws and maintain clear records to address any allegations effectively. Familiarity with judicial precedents and statutory provisions empowers stakeholders to contest unjust notices. The following draft reply provides a structured response to a GST notice, incorporating references to relevant judgments and legal reasoning to seek the release of detained goods.
Click the Blue Button Below to Access a Draft Format for Filing a Reply towards Notice issued against the Detention of Goods on allegation of wrong route or destination.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
