TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed because it was presumed that at Jeedimetla, there was possibility of a local sale, a mere possibility cannot clothe the 1st respondent to take the impugned action. There is no material placed on record by the 1st respondent to show that any attempt was made by the petitioner to deliver the goods at a different place and sell in the local market evading CGST and SGST, because it was found at Jeedimetla. It is not as if the detention was affected by the 1st respondent after noticing any such attempt to sell the goods in the local market by the petitioner. There was no warrant to detain the vehicle along with goods, demand payment of ₹ 4,16,447/- as tax and penalty under the CGST and SGST Act, 2017 - Since petitioner could not cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX TG ORDER ( Per Hon ble Sri Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao ) The petitioner herein is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of Iron and Steel and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Hyderabad Rural STU-I, Centre Jurisdiction, Gajularamaram, Hyderabad (2nd respondent). 2. The petitioner was allotted GST No.36AAMPA4421B2ZC. 3. The petitioner purchased goods from a dealer M/s. JSW Steel Limited, Vidyanagar, Karnataka vide Tax Invoice No.19UJ2900401551 dt.11.12.2019 valued at ₹ 3,52,920.74. 4. Against the said tax invoice under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act (I.G.S.T.), tax at ₹ 18% was levied coming to ₹ 63,526/-. The plea of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 68 thereof and the collection of taxes under both the Central and State Acts towards G.S.T. is arbitrary and highhanded; that at best the 1st respondent can collect from the dealer a security equivalent to the amount payable under Clauses (a) or (b) in the manner prescribed in Section 129(1) of the Act; and that the reason wrong destination given by the respondents is not a good and sufficient reason for levying and collecting tax and penalty from the petitioner and the detention of the goods and the vehicle as well as collection of tax and penalty, is contrary to the provisions of G.S.T. Act, 2017. 9. It is also contended that penalty cannot be levied unless there is willfulness and contumacious conduct of the dealer, and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take the longer route avoiding the normal route. 13. It was further contended that no objection was raised regarding the notice to pay tax and penalty, and the amount was also paid without any protest. 14. It is alleged that under the guise of inter-State sale or supply, the petitioner tried to sell the goods in the local market evading levies both under the CGST and SGST. It is stated that the 1st respondent had authorisedly issued the impugned notice on 11.12.2019 to detain the goods. 15. It was also stated that the 1st respondent had valid authorization to detain the vehicle with the goods. The Consideration by the Court 16. We have noted the contentions of both sides. 17. Admittedly, it was mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sell the goods at the local market evading the CGST and SGST. 21. The invoice in the custody of the driver of the vehicle indicated that IGST @ 18% was already collected and the goods were coming from Karnataka to Balanagar in Hyderabad. When the IGST was already paid, the goods cannot be treated as having escaped tax and fresh tax and penalty cannot be imposed on petitioner. 22. We therefore hold that there was no warrant to detain the vehicle along with goods, demand payment of ₹ 4,16,447/- as tax and penalty under the CGST and SGST Act, 2017. 23. Since petitioner could not contest it owing to the wedding ceremony in his family at that point of time in order to be able to secure the release of the vehicle carrying the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting the amount of ₹ 4,16,447/- from the petitioner towards tax and penalty under the CGST and SGST Act, 2017 under threat of detention of the vehicle carrying the said goods for an absurd reason ( wrong destination ) when the vehicle in question carried all the proper documents evidencing that it was an inter-State sale transaction is clearly arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 28. The 1st respondent is directed to refund the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 13.12.2019 till the date of payment within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 29. The 3rd respondent shall also consider initiating disciplinary action against 1st r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
