2025 (5) TMI 145 - HC - GST

Detention of goods on incorrect grounds - goods in conveyance were different from those mentioned in accompanying documents despite the physical verification report (MOV-04) indicating no discrepancy between the goods and the documents - HELD THAT - On a pointed query put to the State that as soon as H.S.N. Code is fed in the column of description of goods as per invoice whether the goods appear as per the code or it has to be fed the answer was in negative i.e. the goods have to be fed manually. The purpose of filling MOV-04 at the time of physical verification is to find the correctness of the goods in transit from the accompanying documents and if the officer while preparing the MOV-04 did not find any change or difference in goods that of mentioned in the accompanying documents the same cannot be permitted at a later stage for taking a different stand as mentioned in the present case. In view of the facts as stated above as well as in the light of the judgment in the Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 (1) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter were:

• Whether the authorities were justified in issuing a demand and detaining goods on the ground that the goods in transit were different from those mentioned in accompanying documents, despite the physical verification report (MOV-04) indicating no discrepancy between the goods and the documents.
• Whether the authorities can change their stand at a later stage after the physical verification report has been prepared without recording any difference in the goods.
• Whether the impugned order dismissing the appeal against the demand and detention was legally sustainable.
• The applicability of settled legal principles regarding the prohibition on the Revenue changing grounds or supplementing reasons post verification.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legitimacy of the demand and detention based on alleged discrepancy between goods and documents

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the principle that the Revenue cannot arbitrarily detain goods or issue demands without valid, specific, and reasonable grounds. Detention and demand must be based on verifiable discrepancies or non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that at the time of interception, all statutory documents including tax invoices, E-invoices, E-way bills, and goods receipts (bilties) were produced. The statement of the driver recorded in MOV-01 supported the correctness of the documents. The physical verification report (MOV-04), prepared after inspection, explicitly recorded no difference between the goods in the vehicle and those mentioned in the invoices, including the HSN codes.

Key evidence and findings: The MOV-04 report was critical, as it was prepared after physical verification and showed no discrepancy. The petitioner annexed copies of MOV-01 and MOV-04, which were undisputed.

Application of law to facts: Since no discrepancy was found at the time of physical verification, the Revenue was not justified in subsequently alleging that the goods were different from those mentioned in the documents. The Court emphasized that the purpose of MOV-04 is to record the correctness of goods in transit vis-`a-vis accompanying documents, and once this is established, the Revenue cannot take a contrary position.

Treatment of competing arguments: The State argued that the description of goods in the MOV-04 was partially filled manually and that the HSN code automatically populates the description, which may cause errors. However, upon inquiry, the Court found that both the description of goods as per invoice and the description in conveyance columns are manually entered, and the authorities could not justify the discrepancy on this basis.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the demand and detention based on a later changed stance were not sustainable.

Issue 2: Whether the authorities can change their stand after physical verification report is prepared

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence prohibiting the Revenue from changing the grounds or supplementing reasons after initially taking a particular stand. The principle prevents the Revenue from "changing the goal post" at each stage of proceedings.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court cited its own recent precedent wherein it was held that the Revenue cannot keep changing the grounds for detention or demand. Once a particular stand is taken and recorded, especially in a formal report like MOV-04, it cannot be wholly altered later to justify detention or demand.

Key evidence and findings: The Court referred to the earlier case where the detention was initially on the ground of invalid documents but later changed without any basis in the show-cause notice. Similarly, in the present case, the physical verification report did not indicate any discrepancy, yet the Revenue altered its stance.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied this principle to hold that the Revenue's volte face was impermissible and vitiated the impugned order.

Treatment of competing arguments: The State did not offer any valid reason for the change in stand, nor did it address the MOV-04 report adequately in its counter affidavit.

Conclusions: The authorities were not permitted to take a different stand after the physical verification report and the impugned order based on such changed grounds was invalid.

Issue 3: Sustainability of the impugned order dismissing the appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the procedural fairness and the requirement that appellate authorities consider all material on record, including the physical verification report.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without adequately considering the material evidence (MOV-04) which showed no discrepancy. This failure to consider crucial evidence rendered the appellate order unsustainable.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's appeal was dismissed despite the annexures proving correctness of the goods and documents.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained in the eyes of law due to non-consideration of relevant material and reliance on untenable grounds.

Treatment of competing arguments: The State failed to justify the dismissal or address the MOV-04 report effectively.

Conclusions: The impugned order was quashed and set aside.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court established and reiterated the following core principles and final determinations:

"It is trite law, settled by a catena of Supreme Court judgments, that the Revenue cannot beat around the bush and keep changing the goal post at each stage. Once the Revenue had taken a particular stand, the same cannot be completely changed and/or supplemented by a different reason or ground."

"The purpose of filling MOV-04, at the time of physical verification, is to find the correctness of the goods in transit from the accompanying documents and if the officer while preparing the MOV-04 did not find any change or difference in goods that of mentioned in the accompanying documents, the same cannot be permitted at a later stage for taking a different stand."

"The detention of goods causes serious prejudice to an assessee and the same can only be done on the basis of specific, valid and reasonable grounds."

"In light of the findings above, we are of the view that the detention order and the subsequent show-cause notice were bad in law, and accordingly, both are quashed and set-aside."

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 10.11.2023, allowed the writ petition, and directed refund of any amounts deposited during the pendency of the litigation.