TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on 18.03.2022 the driver of the vehicle was informed regarding such seizure - Despite specific direction passed by this court, the respondent no. 3 caused an assessment imposing tax and penalty under the Act and Rules. Even the respondents did not feel it necessary to issue any notice upon the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this court after passing of the judgment, which act is purely non-compliance of the order passed by this court. The impugned order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the demand made by the respondent no. 4 imposing penalty and tax upon the petitioner by its order dated 02.04.2022 stands quashed and are set-aside - Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 338/2022 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2023 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) AMARNATH GOUD AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BN Majumder, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. Paul, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA Mr. K. De, Addl. GA JUDGMENT (Amarnath Goud, ACJ) Heard Mr. BN Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till 17.03.2022. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the way the said vehicle developed some technical defect as such it could reach Churaibari only in the morning of 18.03.2022, and on the ground of expiry of e-way bill, the seller approached this court vide WP(C) 285 of 2022 and vide order dated 29.03.2022 this court directed to release the goods and the vehicle on giving undertaking or bond by the seller and directed the respondent no. 3 to provide appropriate information to the assessing officer, but the respondent no. 3 in violation of the said direction caused an assessment saddling taxable liability to the driver of the vehicle and further respondent no. 4 had issued demand notice to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. During arguments, Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the vehicle which was carrying the goods was detained by the respondents since the validity of the e-way bill had expired and issued show-cause notice upon the driver for imposition of cost under the CGST SGST Act. Learned senior counsel has also argued that the vehicle was released by this court vide order dated 29.03.2022 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty; (b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per cent. of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and penalty; (c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods. (2) The provisions of sub-section (6) of section 67 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply for detention and seizure of goods and conveyances. (3) The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order for payment of tax and penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitted to continue with such carrying subject of course to either the check gate officer informing the assessing officer where the buyer is located and further direct the buyer to appear before the assessing officer to provide an opportunity to the buyer or seller to take such corrective steps as may be necessary in the matter. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the revenue that the movement of goods from one state to another is controlled by the taxation department under the GST regime on the e-way bill issue. Therefore, since the transaction admittedly is between two registered dealers located in two different states, there is no justification for stoppage in transit of the vehicle and goods. [6] We are of the considered view that balance has to be brought between transportation of goods as well as the taxing event i.e. the sale or purchase of goods of service. In a case where there is no doubt that a transaction is made between two registered dealers and is covered by the necessary documents including the e-way bill even if the e-way bill has expired just prior to the date of entry into the State, such goods ought not to be stopped and instead an und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
