9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the owner of the vehicle in which the said goods were being transported. The goods and the vehicle, during the course of transit through the State of Kerala, were detained by the respondents at Vattolipady near Perumbavoor. The consignment, on interception, was found to be covered by an invoice as well as an e-way bill that showed the payment of tax [IGST] for the inter-state movement covering the journey from Kanyakumari to Kalyan. The detention, however, was for the reason that the vehicle was apprehended at a place that was not on the normal route between Kanyakumari and Maharashtra. 3. It would appear that the respondents passed an order for physical verification in FORM GST MOV-2, and immediately on receipt of the same, the petitioner in W.P(C).No.21907/2020 approached this Court challenging the detention of the goods and the vehicle. While the learned Government Pleader took time to get instructions in the matter, a statement was also recorded from the owner of the goods as also the driver of the vehicle, and copies of the said statements were made available before this Court. The respondents had also, in the meanwhile, collected material in the form of information from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om Trivandrum side can take a right turn, move into the Aluva Munnar Road to proceed to Munnar side. In this road, the main places are Vattolipady, Kothamangalam etc. If a vehicle travels from Trivandrum and proceeds to Kothamangalam, the front side of the vehicle must be facing towards Kothamangalam. In the instant case, when the vehicle was intercepted, the vehicle was seen traveling towards the Perumbavoor side. In other words, the vehicle was positioned as travelling from Kothamangalam with its front facing the opposite side of Munnar route. A sketch of this area with directions and names of places is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.R3(a). 4. The 3rd respondent was during the time, on surveillance duty. As part of regular checking, the vehicle was intercepted and documents were asked for. The driver who was then present in the vehicle, Mr.Faizal stated that the vehicle was coming from Kothamangalam and loaded with goods to Maharashtra. On verification of the documents, it was found that the accompanying E-way bill showed a transportation from Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu to Kalyan West, Maharashtra. When confronted with the invoice and e-way bill, the driver stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed him to come over to the office to record his statement and a summons was issued under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST Act on 13.10.2020. A true copy of the summons issued by the 3rd respondent on the petitioner is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit R3(b). 8. On 14.10.2020, when the above Writ Petition came up for admission, this Hon'ble Court after hearing both sides, directed the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent on the same day. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and his statement was recorded. In the said statement, the petitioner deposed that he was working as a technician in a computer shop at Thripunithura for a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/-. A person by name Manoj, whom he met by chance, had informed him of a business opportunity, which would reap substantial profits. It was told by Manoj that for the purpose of this business, the petitioner's documents and ID proofs were required. The details sought for were handed over to Manoj. Thereafter, Manoj informed him that a GST Registration was taken in the name of the petitioner in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner further stated that he had not affixed his signature on any document for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and Rules are later found in their transactions. Essentially, bill trading refers to a pattern of business where the persons behind the business involve in trading of bills without actual movement of goods from the place where it is said to have originated. 13. To elaborate further, as in the instant case, the bill is seen raised from the State of Tamil Nadu. Ideally, being an IGST transaction, the petitioner ought to have remitted the tax in the State of Tamil Nadu and brought the goods through the State of Kerala to the State of Maharashtra. Here the goods were never loaded from Tamil Nadu, and therefore no tax is paid to the State of Tamil Nadu. The owner of the consignment, that is, the petitioner herein has no information or knowledge with regard to the transportation. The fact that he himself is not a 'manufacturer' of Plywood is relevant here. In the registration details of the petitioner, the nature of his business activity is taken as one for wholesale business of Plywood, that is, it is only for trading of the commodity. A dealer who is also a manufacturer will be allotted the GST registration by recording his activity as a 'manufacturer'. If the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time available for completing an investigation for the purposes of Section 130, from undertaking an exhaustive investigation of transactions with a view to ascertaining an intention to evade payment of tax. It is her submission that on account of the said fact, this Court ought not to interfere with orders of detention/confiscation by citing technical lapses that have occurred during the investigation process. 8. On a consideration of the rival submissions as also on going through the averments in the writ petitions as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is quite apparent that the respondents have misunderstood the scope and ambit of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. It is now settled through a catena of decisions of this Court as well as the other High Courts that Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions, and that, while a detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 could entail proceedings under Section 130, in situations where the detained goods/vehicle are not cleared by the owners thereof within a period of 14 days from the date of passing of the order under Section 129, it does not follow that in all cases where Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 130 against the petitioners was not justified, more so when, the petitioners were not confronted with any material in the possession of the respondents that suggested an intention to evade payment of tax. As a matter of fact, in the notices served on the petitioners under Section 130 of the GST Act, there is no mention of any material that would point to a possible intention to evade payment of tax by the petitioners, and hence there could not have been an order confirming the proposed confiscation in terms of Section 130 of the GST Act. 9. Before parting with these cases, I must observe that, while it may be true that the invocation of Section 130 of the GST Act in these cases was not justified, the irregularity in the documents that accompanied the transportation surely make it out to be a case that justified a detention of the goods under Section 129 of the GST Act. In proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, there is no requirement for establishing mens rea, and hence, merely on detecting an irregularity in the documents that are to accompany the transportation of goods, the respondents would be justified in detaining the goods and passing the necessary order u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
