Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

We are clearly of the view that seizure orders, show-cause notices issued under section 129 (3) and final orders are not sustainable in law

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017—Seizure order—E-way bill not accompanied by Transporters when goods were intercepted—Evasion of tax—In the instant case, the petitioners challenged interception of goods on the ground that there is no requirement of accompanying said E-Way Bill; provisions of Provincial Statute cannot override provisions of Central Statue and, in any case, omission is only indeliberate and unintentional.

Held that—Rule 138, as initially enacted and made effective from 29.6.2017 read with Government Notification dated 21.7.2017, prescribing procedure, came into force on 16.08.2017 by Commissioner's Circular dated 22.07.2017 read with Circulars dated 27.02.2017 and 09.08.2017, stood replaced by Rule 138 by Notification dated 31.01.2018 which came into force on 01.02.2018.
Therefore, neither it can be said that Petitioners have deliberately committed any fault or disobeyed law intentionally or fraudulently, particularly when respondent-authorities themselves were not very clear. It also cannot be said that there is/was any intention of evasion of tax on the part of these petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, in all the writ petitions (except Writ Petition No. 87 of 2018), we are clearly of the view that seizure orders, show-cause notices issued under section 129 (3) and final orders, if any, are not sustainable in law.

Jurisdiction of state authorities—Officers of State are also competent for search, seizure and imposition of penalty in respect of violation of Central Enactments. Moreover, provisions relating to search and seizure are not for the purpose of imposition of a new liability but to regulate fiscal statutory provisions in order to avoid evasion of tax. Nothing has been placed on record to show that similar requirement of relevant documents was not provided by Central Government also in respect of inter-state transactions. There is also a principle that mere mention of a wrong provision will not make an order bad, if otherwise, power exists in the Statute.

We are not satisfied that the provisions made by Governor vide Rule 138 read with Government's Notification dated 21.07.2017 and Commissioner's Circulars dated 22.07.2017 and 09.08.2017 are ultra vires of any Statute.

Orders of Seizure of goods for the period prior to 1.2.2018 set aside— Decided in favor of petitioners.
Petition against seizure of goods that was challenged on the ground of Jurisdiction, dismissed — Decided against the petitioner.[M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS] [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
[2018] 4 TAXLOK.COM 76 (All)

Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
whatsapp with taxlok SUBSCRIBE OUR MAGAZINE

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE