Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (5) TMI 1604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a registered taxpayer under the provisions of WBGST & CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). The petitioner no. 1 in usual course had entered into agreement with Ghosh Enterprises based in Kolkata, for purchase of clothing items (in short the "said goods"). The petitioners claims that the Ghosh Enterprises as supplier issued tax invoice dated July 20, 2024 and an E-way bill dated July 21, 2024, including therein the name of the petitioner no. 1 as a consignee, for transporting the goods from Kolkata to New Delhi. During transit of the goods, the goods were intercepted at Asansole. The petitioner no. 1 claiming to be the owner in respect of the said goods and had approached the authorities for release of the goods. Acco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egard to the provisions contained in Section 129 (1) (b) of the said Act, the respondents had permitted the petitioners to seek release of the goods on payment of penalty as provided therein. 5. Mrs. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners by drawing attention of this Court to the release order dated October 31, 2024 would submit that the petitioners having no other alternative, had sought for release of the goods by making payment of penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods which, according to the petitioners, is much higher than the payment of penalty of 200% of the tax to seek release, by invoking provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the said Act. She would submit that the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as not issued by him and he does not run business of M/s. Ghosh Enterprises. In fact, the purported proprietor of Ghosh Enterprises had disclaimed to have obtained a registration certificate under the provisions of the said Act. 8. Having regard thereto, since the validity of the invoice was in dispute and since the petitioner no. 1's ownership in respect of the goods could not be established, the respondent no. 1 refused to accept the petitioners' as owner of the goods which had been detained. However, having regard thereto the provisions contained in Section 129 (1) (b) of the said Act, the petitioners being otherwise entitled to, were granted liberty to seek release and the petitioners had since obtained release of the goods by making p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... detained. 10. A perusal of the order, would demonstrate that the respondent no. 1 had come to a finding that Siddhartha Ghosh, the purported proprietor of Ghosh Enterprises who was the named consignor of the petitioners' goods disclaimed that he had any registration certificate in the name of the Ghosh Enterprises or to have issued the tax invoice. 11. Although, the petitioners had relied on a circular dated December 31, 2018 issued by the CBDT to establish ownership, however, since the very basis of the petitioners' claim is in dispute, especially having regard to the statement given by Siddhartha Ghosh, the purported proprietor of M/s. Ghosh Enterprises, the respondent no. 1 refused to accept the petitioner no. 1 as the owner in respec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 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 cr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates