Invocation of Section 130, in the absence of any material to suggest that there was an evasion of tax by the petitioners, cannot be said to be justified.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the vehicle was apprehended at a place that was not on the normal route between Kanyakumari and Maharashtra. The respondent submitted that the goods had actually been loaded in the vehicle only from Nellikuzhi in Kerala and invoked the provisions of Section 130 to issue a notice in FORM GST MOV-10 and passed orders in FORM GST MOV-11, confiscating the goods and the vehicle. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order passed against him. The court observed that even assuming that the goods in question were procured from Nellikuzhi, the tax liability would have to be under the IGST Act, and the said tax liability was already declared by the petitioners in the tax invoice. Thus, respondent does not point to any intention to evade payment of tax. The necessary ingredient of mens rea not are not established.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order under Section 130 and directed the respondents to pass orders under Section 129(3). The petitioners are permitted to obtain a release of the goods and the vehicle on payment of the tax amount in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amounts confirmed against them.
Invocation of Section 130, in the absence of any material to suggest that there was an evasion of tax by the petitioners, cannot be said to be justified.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the vehicle was apprehended at a place that was not on the normal route between Kanyakumari and Maharashtra. The respondent submitted that the goods had actually been loaded in the vehicle only from Nellikuzhi in Kerala and invoked the provisions of Section 130 to issue a notice in FORM GST MOV-10 and passed orders in FORM GST MOV-11, confiscating the goods and the vehicle. The petitioner challenged the confiscation order passed against him. The court observed that even assuming that the goods in question were procured from Nellikuzhi, the tax liability would have to be under the IGST Act, and the said tax liability was already declared by the petitioners in the tax invoice. Thus, respondent does not point to any intention to evade payment of tax. The necessary ingredient of mens rea not are not established.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order under Section 130 and directed the respondents to pass orders under Section 129(3). The petitioners are permitted to obtain a release of the goods and the vehicle on payment of the tax amount in cash and furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amounts confirmed against them.