Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1344 - HC - GSTPenalty u/s 129 of GST Act - transport at the behest of an individual, an unregistered person - interstate supply of more than ₹ 50,000/- value - E-way bill - the temporary registration at Pondicherry - compensation cess is seen collected at 20% instead of 25%. Held that:- Sub-rule (2) of Rule 138 compels the “registered person”, as a consignor or as a consignee, to generate the e-way bill. If he does not generate e-way bill and hands over the consignment to a transporter, sub-rule (3) applies: the registered person as the consignor upload the information about the transporter in the common portal. And that transporter must, then, generate the e-way bill. Here, Mohan is not a “registered person,” nor is he dealing in the cars-he is a consumer - the Ext.P3 is only a document witnessing transport of a pre-owned vehicle-rather than a vehicle whose sale could not be completed until it was delivered at its destination-at the instance of an unregistered person. Does the statutory mandate under section 129 of the GST Act admit of any discretion to let the affected party pay a reduced amount of tax and penalty pending further adjudication, for having the interim custody of the detained goods? - Held that:- Division Bench in Indus Towers [2018 (7) TMI 1181 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has held that “if the conditions under the Act and Rules are not complied with, definitely Section 129 operates and confiscation would be attracted. The respondents are entitled to adjudication, but they would have to prove that” the goods being transported stand exempted from the rigours of the GST regime. I fail to persuade myself that I can take a different course from what has been judicially mandated in Indus Towers, for that case-holding squarely binds me. As a matter of abundant caution, I reiterate that I have not touched on the merits; nor should the authorities construe this judgment as expressing any view on the petitioners’ claims and contentions. The matter, as I have observed, concerns, interim custody of the goods. Section 129 and other provisions of the Act the Rules prescribe the procedure for that purpose. Either petitioner can get the goods released by complying with section 129 and the relevant rules, and seek an early adjudication of the dispute.
|