Case Law Details
A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Uttarakhand And Others (Uttarakhand High Court)
Conclusion: The Court ordered the release of Vehicle, mango kernel oil, mahua oil, rice bran oil confiscated under section 130 of CGST Act, 2017 as mere suspicion was not sufficient to invoke the provision of the confiscation.
Held: In the present case, assessee-company was transporting Rice Bran Oil from its factory located in Punjab to a dealer , namely M/s S in the State of Uttarakhand. It was transporting the said consignment of Rice Bran Oil through three trucks bearing Registration Nos. In order to transport the consignment, assessee raised three e-Invoices. According to assessee, the moment the e-Invoices were generated on the portal of the department, the transaction immediately got reflected, and accounted for with the department. Moreover, assessee generated e-Way bills from the e-Way portal of the department. These e-Way bills contained cross-references to the e-Invoices which were to expire on 30.03.2021. Since the e-Way bills had expired within three days, the Assistant Commissioner (GST-State), issued three separate orders for physical verification/inspection of the consignment. Upon physical verification, the description on the e-Invoices was found to be matching with the physical goods verified in the vehicle, namely fixed vegetable oils of vegetable grade i.e. mango kernel oil, mahua oil, and rice bran oil. Despite the fact that there was no discrepancy, still the officers ordered the detention of the goods, and of the trucks for further proceedings. According to the department, the show-cause notices were issued ostensibly on the ground that “the e-Way Bills had expired”. It was held that mere suspicion was not sufficient to invoke the provision of the confiscation. Moreover, assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard according to the intent of the Legislature before passing the confiscation order as mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 130. However, the department had completely failed to show that assessee was indeed, given an opportunity of being heard before the passing the orders of the confiscation in Form GST MOV-11. The confiscation orders passed under Section 130 in Form GST MOV-11, were not found to be passed in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed and set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Since both these writ petitions arise from similar set of facts, raise identical legal issues, and seek similar reliefs, the petitions are being decided by this common judgment. The Writ Petition (M/S) No.1014 of 2021 will be leading case.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
