2025 (5) TMI 1604 - HC - GST

Application seeking release of the goods under Section 129(1)(a) of the WBGST CGST Act 2017 - claim for ownership - e-way bill - validity of the transaction and the factum of issuance of such tax invoice - HELD THAT - In the instant case the petitioners could not establish ownership over the goods. However at the same time the aforesaid decision cannot be accepted as final as the petitioner no. 1 has a recourse in the form of an appeal to establish its claim for ownership under the said Act. Admittedly in this case I find that an order under Section 129 (3) of the said Act has already been passed. Considering that the statement of Siddhartha Ghosh has been relied upon in refusing to accept the petitioners as owner of the aforesaid goods ordinarily the petitioners ought to have been afforded an opportunity to confront the said Siddhartha Ghosh. The petitioners must therefore be permitted to establish ownership of the goods before the Appellate Authority. If the respondents seek to rely on the statement of the Siddhartha Ghosh the respondents must make available such statement of Siddhartha Ghosh for the petitioners to respond to the same. The respondents should produce Siddhartha Ghosh as witness in the proceedings for the petitioners to cross-examine him in the event the petitioners choose to file an appeal under Section 129 (3) of the said Act. Thus I am of the view that if the petitioners file an appeal from the order passed under Section 129 (3) of the said Act within a period of 4 weeks from date the same shall be heard on merits and be disposed of within a period of 16 weeks from filing the appeal. The appellate authority shall hear out and decide the appeal on merits having regard to the observations made herein and upon giving an opportunity to the petitioners to establish the factum of ownership of the goods. The petitioner shall be given opportunity to file the appeal manually and the respondents are directed to assist the petitioner in filing such appeal. With the aforesaid observations the instant writ petitioner being WPA 9544 of 2025 is disposed of.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the petitioner no. 1, claiming ownership of goods in transit, is entitled to release of the goods under Section 129(1)(a) of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017, based on a tax invoice and e-way bill issued by the supplier.

- Whether the authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim of ownership on the ground that the purported supplier disclaimed issuance of the tax invoice and registration under the Act.

- The validity and evidentiary value of the tax invoice and e-way bill in establishing ownership of goods for the purpose of release under Section 129.

- The applicability and binding nature of the Circular dated December 31, 2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) regarding ownership proof through tax invoices.

- The procedural fairness owed to the petitioner, including the right to confront and cross-examine the person denying the validity of the invoice.

- The scope of relief available under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act where ownership is disputed but release is sought on payment of penalty.

- The procedural directions for appeal under Section 129(3) of the Act and the manner in which the appellate authority should adjudicate ownership disputes.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Release of Goods under Section 129(1)(a) based on Tax Invoice and E-way Bill

The legal framework under Section 129(1)(a) of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017 provides for release of detained goods to the owner upon submission of proof of ownership, typically through a tax invoice and e-way bill. The petitioner no. 1 claimed ownership based on the supplier's issuance of these documents in their name. The petitioner relied on a Government of India Circular dated December 31, 2018, which states that possession of a tax invoice in the name of the petitioner should suffice to establish ownership for release purposes.

The Court noted that ordinarily, a tax invoice is sufficient proof of ownership of goods. However, the critical factual finding was that the purported supplier, Siddhartha Ghosh, disclaimed having issued the invoice or even possessing registration under the Act. This dispute over the transaction's authenticity undermined the petitioner's claim.

The Court distinguished the petitioner's reliance on the Circular by emphasizing that the Circular's guidance applies when the authenticity of the invoice is not in dispute. Here, the named consignor's denial of the transaction rendered the invoice's evidentiary value questionable. Thus, the Circular could not be invoked to conclusively establish ownership.

Regarding precedent, the petitioner cited an unreported Division Bench judgment allowing provisional release on the basis of the invoice despite departmental allegations of fakery. The Court clarified that in that case, the consignor did not disclaim the transaction, and the release was provisional, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Therefore, that precedent did not mandate acceptance of ownership in the present facts.

Issue 2: Justification for Rejection of Ownership Claim and Validity of Tax Invoice

The Assistant Commissioner, on enquiry, found that the purported supplier denied issuing the invoice and having registration, casting doubt on the transaction's validity. The Court upheld this finding as a reasonable basis for rejecting the petitioner's ownership claim under Section 129(1)(a).

The Court held that where the authenticity of the invoice is disputed by the alleged issuer, the authorities are justified in refusing to accept it as conclusive proof of ownership. This approach prevents misuse of documents to claim ownership of goods unlawfully.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 129(1)(b) and Payment of Penalty for Release

In light of the disputed ownership, the authorities invoked Section 129(1)(b), which allows release of detained goods on payment of penalty, even if ownership is not established. The petitioner paid a penalty equal to 50% of the goods' value to secure release.

The Court found no irregularity in this approach, as it balances the rights of the claimant with the need to prevent illegal transportation of goods. The penalty regime under Section 129(1)(b) acts as a deterrent where ownership is contested.

Issue 4: Procedural Fairness and Right to Confront Adverse Witness

The Court observed that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to confront the statement of Siddhartha Ghosh, whose denial of the transaction was pivotal in rejecting ownership. The Court emphasized the principle of natural justice requiring that the petitioner be allowed to cross-examine such adverse witnesses in appellate proceedings.

The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal under Section 129(3), the appellate authority must provide a fair hearing including the opportunity to challenge the denial by the purported supplier, who should be produced as a witness if necessary.

Issue 5: Appeal Mechanism under Section 129(3) and Directions for Disposal

The Court noted that the petitioner has recourse to appeal under Section 129(3) against the detention order. It directed that any appeal filed within four weeks must be heard on merits and disposed of within sixteen weeks.

The appellate authority must consider the petitioner's ownership claim afresh, allowing evidence and cross-examination, and decide the issue in light of the observations made. The respondents were directed to assist the petitioner in filing the appeal and ensure procedural fairness.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "Ordinarily a tax invoice is sufficient proof of ownership of goods, however, having regard to the fact that the named consignor on the invoice having come forward and having disclaimed the validity of the transaction and the factum of issuance of such tax invoice, the aforesaid circular in my view cannot come in aid of the petitioners to establish the ownership."

- "If the respondents seek to rely on the statement of the Siddhartha Ghosh, the respondents must make available such statement of Siddhartha Ghosh for the petitioners to respond to the same. The respondents should produce Siddhartha Ghosh as witness in the proceedings for the petitioners to cross-examine him, in the event the petitioners choose to file an appeal under Section 129 (3) of the said Act."

- The Court established the principle that while tax invoices generally suffice to establish ownership for release of goods under Section 129(1)(a), this presumption is rebuttable by credible denial from the purported issuer.

- The Court affirmed the validity of releasing goods on payment of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) where ownership is disputed.

- The Court underscored the procedural fairness requirement that appellants must be allowed to confront adverse witnesses and that appellate authorities must adjudicate appeals on merits within a fixed timeframe.

- Final determination: The petitioner's claim for release under Section 129(1)(a) was rightly rejected due to disputed ownership, but the petitioner is entitled to appeal and establish ownership with due process, including cross-examination of adverse parties. The release of goods on penalty payment under Section 129(1)(b) was appropriate in the circumstances.