The proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 130 of the GST Act, cannot be legally sustained. The impugned order under Section 130 of the GST Act is therefore quashed, and the respondents are directed to pass orders under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the consignment was accompanied by the documents which were defective. The petitioner submitted that the consignment was accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill that showed transportation of the goods was from Coimbatore to Gujarat. The respondents submitted that the loading of the consignment was effected in Palakkad, within the State of Kerala, and not in Coimbatore. The respondents served a notice in FORM GST MOV-10 and passed an order of confiscation under Section 130. The court observed that the petitioner had admitted his liability to IGST by declaring the same in the invoice, and if the goods, even assuming that they were loaded from Palakkad, were destined to Gujarat, it is the IGST that had to be paid by the petitioner, therefore, the proceedings under Section 130 cannot be legally sustained.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order under Section 130 and directed the respondents to pass orders under Section 129(3) after hearing the petitioners, within a week. The respondents shall permit the petitioners to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts determined, consequent to the detention of the goods and the vehicle.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 130 of the GST Act, cannot be legally sustained. The impugned order under Section 130 of the GST Act is therefore quashed, and the respondents are directed to pass orders under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Section 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the consignment was accompanied by the documents which were defective. The petitioner submitted that the consignment was accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill that showed transportation of the goods was from Coimbatore to Gujarat. The respondents submitted that the loading of the consignment was effected in Palakkad, within the State of Kerala, and not in Coimbatore. The respondents served a notice in FORM GST MOV-10 and passed an order of confiscation under Section 130. The court observed that the petitioner had admitted his liability to IGST by declaring the same in the invoice, and if the goods, even assuming that they were loaded from Palakkad, were destined to Gujarat, it is the IGST that had to be paid by the petitioner, therefore, the proceedings under Section 130 cannot be legally sustained.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order under Section 130 and directed the respondents to pass orders under Section 129(3) after hearing the petitioners, within a week. The respondents shall permit the petitioners to clear the goods and the vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amounts determined, consequent to the detention of the goods and the vehicle.