SGST High Court Cases

GST - Notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Validity of issue of supplementary notice - Detention of goods on the ground that the goods were not on the regular route but on a different route and the truck driver had given a statement that instead of Robertsganj the goods were to be unloaded at Ghaziabad but no document was produced for unloading the goods at Ghaziabad – HELD - The GST Act is a complete Code in itself. There is no room for deviation from it. The provision and the Rules are to be complied with strictly. In another words, the action of the officers of State authority should be transparent - Admittedly the goods were accompanied with tax invoice, e-waybill and GR which shows that the goods were originated from Gurgaon, Haryana and to be terminated at Robertsganj, U.P. – the GR number and date, tax invoice number and date, consigner/seller's name and purchaser/consignee's name, item with disclosed amount and e-way bill number were mentioned and no discrepancy has been pointed out - Once the authority have recorded the statement given by the truck driver that the goods were to be unloaded at Robersganj and then the subsequent statement of the truck driver alleging to unload the goods at Ghaziabad instead of Robersganj cannot be recorded by any stretch of imagination and not permissible in the eye of law without any cogent material on record, which shows that perverse action has been taken against the petitioner - No provision empowers the respondents for issuing supplementary notice with a view to take a different view all together treating the goods in question different than the disclosed in Form GST MOV 04 i.e. physical verification report - From a perusal of the MOV-04 it is evidently clear that after physical verification goods were found as per disclosed documents and in absence of any justification the product as treated as different as disclosed by the Revenue cannot be accepted, therefore, the action for seizure/ detention, demand of levy of penalty is vitiated - Once the owner of the goods has come forward the levy of penalty under section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act cannot be justified as section 129(1)(a) of Act provides that where the owner of the goods come forward for payment of penalty the amount of tax payable should be 200%, whereas in the case in hand the penalty has been levied to the tune of 200% of the value of the goods - The writ petition succeeds and is allowed

Quick Search


Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page