2024-VIL-724-ALH

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Interception and seizure of goods and vehicle – Levy of penalty on ground that the vehicle was not on the route of its destination and on the basis that the driver made statement that goods were to be unloaded at the place which is not mentioned in the tax invoice – HELD - Admittedly, the goods in question were sold by the registered dealer along with genuine documents i.e. tax invoices and e-way bills. At the time of interception it is alleged that driver of the vehicle made statement that goods were to be unloaded at the place which is not mentioned in the tax invoice but in the GST MOV-01, not a single word has been whispered in respect of the goods in question to be unloaded at the place which has not been shown in the tax invoice accompanying the goods – Further, under the GST Act, there is no specific provision which bounds the selling dealer to disclose the route to be taken during transportation of goods or while goods are in transit however there was a provision under VAT Act to disclose the route during transportation of goods to reach its final destination. Once the legislature itself in its wisdom has chosen to delete the said provision, the authorities were not correct in passing the seizure order even if the vehicle was not on regular route or on different route - The power of detention as well as seizure can be exercised only when the goods were not accompanying with the genuine documents provided under the Act. Once the documents accompanying the goods were found to be genuine the goods ought not be have been seized – the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is quashed – the writ petition 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