Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1314 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith vehicle - goods not accompanied by the tax invoice and the E-Way Bill - Section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - Held that - A perusal of the seizure order and the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Act for the release of the goods reveal that the transporter has not been assigned any role in the entire transaction which had led to the seizure of the goods except that it is alleged that the driver had left behind the documents by mistake - since the detention of the vehicle of the transporter is likely to cause irreparable loss and injury to him as his business of transport would be affected, the release of the vehicle is directed forthwith to the petitioner No.2 without any condition if the owner of the goods fails to turn upto comply with the conditions of release - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Seizure of goods in transit due to missing tax invoice and E-Way Bill, release of goods under Section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, challenge to tax and penalty amount, determination of market value, involvement of transporter in seizure, release of transporter's vehicle. Analysis: The petitioners' goods (Supari) were seized during transit for not being accompanied by the required tax invoice and E-Way Bill. Subsequently, the documents were produced after a show cause notice was issued, explaining that the driver had mistakenly left them behind. The High Court directed the release of the seized goods and the vehicle under Section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 upon depositing the applicable tax and penalty equal to the said amount. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the market value of the goods was inaccurately mentioned in the order under Section 129(3), leading to an excessive tax and penalty requirement. The Court acknowledged its inability to determine the market value of the seized goods, emphasizing that the release order was a summary assessment for the limited purpose of releasing the goods, not a final adjudication on market value. Consequently, the Court found no miscarriage of justice warranting interference with the conditions for releasing the goods. Regarding the involvement of the transporter in the seizure, it was noted that the transporter had no substantial role in the transaction besides the driver's inadvertent document mishap. Recognizing the potential harm to the transporter's business due to vehicle detention, the Court ordered the immediate release of the transporter's vehicle without conditions if the owner of the goods failed to comply with release conditions. The judgment disposed of the Writ Petition, clarifying that any observations made therein would not hinder the petitioner in subsequent proceedings related to assessment or penalty adjudication. This comprehensive analysis addresses the key issues of seizure, release under Section 129(3), market value determination, transporter's involvement, and the release of the transporter's vehicle, as outlined in the Allahabad High Court's decision.
|