Since machine was being transported for performance of job work and not for any other work, detention orders cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Proper Authority and first appellate authority, under Section 129. Since the GST Tribunal has not been constituted so far, it is urged that statutory right of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal cannot be taken away. The petitioner submitted that the driver of the vehicle produced an E-way bill electronically as per which the machine was being transported. No tax invoice, challan, hard copy etc. was found with the vehicle. The respondent considering, it to be a violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, detained the vehicle and a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 129(3). The petitioner submitted in reply to the notice that the E-way bill available with the driver was mistakenly generated inasmuch as it related to purchase of drilling machine in 2018 itself, and that the correct E-way bill has also been generated. But the respondent confirmed tax and penalty. The petitioner submitted that the machine in transit was actually a horizontal direction drilling machine which was to be utilised by the assessee for performance of job contract. The machine was purchased in 2018 and the amount of GST payable for such purchase has already been paid in the year 2018 itself. The Assessing Authority and the first Appellate Authority have failed to examine petitioner's claim on merits with regard to execution of job work and the consequential liability to pay tax and penalty. The job work since is yet to be performed and no payment is made, therefore, no amount is actually payable towards tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that since the investigation is not found to be in accordance with law, the orders are accordingly quashed. The Petitioner shall appear before the proper Officer on 5.10.2020 and shall furnish all such details as are available with it to substantiate its plea. The proper Officer will examine such defence and thereafter determine the liability, if any, in accordance with law.
Since machine was being transported for performance of job work and not for any other work, detention orders cannot be sustained and accordingly quashed
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Proper Authority and first appellate authority, under Section 129. Since the GST Tribunal has not been constituted so far, it is urged that statutory right of the petitioner to approach the Tribunal cannot be taken away. The petitioner submitted that the driver of the vehicle produced an E-way bill electronically as per which the machine was being transported. No tax invoice, challan, hard copy etc. was found with the vehicle. The respondent considering, it to be a violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, detained the vehicle and a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 129(3). The petitioner submitted in reply to the notice that the E-way bill available with the driver was mistakenly generated inasmuch as it related to purchase of drilling machine in 2018 itself, and that the correct E-way bill has also been generated. But the respondent confirmed tax and penalty. The petitioner submitted that the machine in transit was actually a horizontal direction drilling machine which was to be utilised by the assessee for performance of job contract. The machine was purchased in 2018 and the amount of GST payable for such purchase has already been paid in the year 2018 itself. The Assessing Authority and the first Appellate Authority have failed to examine petitioner's claim on merits with regard to execution of job work and the consequential liability to pay tax and penalty. The job work since is yet to be performed and no payment is made, therefore, no amount is actually payable towards tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that since the investigation is not found to be in accordance with law, the orders are accordingly quashed. The Petitioner shall appear before the proper Officer on 5.10.2020 and shall furnish all such details as are available with it to substantiate its plea. The proper Officer will examine such defence and thereafter determine the liability, if any, in accordance with law.