Shiv Scrap Sales Vs State of U.P. and Another (Allahabad High Court)
Assessee directed to approach competent authority to prove ownership of the detained goods by moving proper application
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s Shiv Scrap Sales v. State of U.P. & Anr. [Writ Tax No. 1519 of 2022 dated December 7, 2022] has directed the assessee to approach the competent authority by moving a proper application for giving the details of the ownership of the detained goods, in a matter challenging the order of detention of the goods for alleged non-existence of purchaser firm and for carrying fake invoice by driver, wherein, the notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle instead of the owner of the goods. Further directed the Revenue Department to duly deal with the application in accordance with Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).
Facts:
M/s Shiv Scrap Sales (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the business of supplying mixed scrap to the dealers situated at different places, whose goods were seized in transit. The seized goods were sent in transit after generation of an E-way bill on November 14, 2022 which was valid till November 17, 2022. Further, the driver was carrying the valid tax invoice and E-way bill when the goods were intercepted on November 15, 2022.
The Petitioner submitted that no reason was assigned for the seizure of goods. It was further submitted that in Form GST MOV-06, it was stated that the purchaser firm is non-existent and it was a fake sale and invoice, which is false. Therefore, as the detention order was illegal, the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) had no jurisdiction to proceed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. Further, it was submitted by the Petitioner that he had submitted a claim of him being the owner of the goods before the Respondent by moving an application that was appended with this petition.
However, the notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued to the driver of the vehicle carrying goods of the Petitioner, instead of the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that once a claim of being the owner of the goods has been put forth before the Respondent, all proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act were required to be conducted after giving due opportunity to the Petitioner.
Being aggrieved this petition has been filed by the Petitioner.
Issue:
Whether the goods of the Petitioner were liable to be seized under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 519 of 2022 held as under:
