Case Law Details
S.K. Trading Co And Another Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal ) And Another (Allahabad High Court)
It is stated that on 21.09.2022, a detention order was passed detaining the goods in question mainly on the ground that the goods were without E-Way bill. It is argued that although under Section 129(3) of U.P. GST Act, there is a prescription for issuance of a notice in Form GST MOV-07, however, the notice was not issued in the format as prescribed but was issued by an authority whose name is not even specified as the order itself recorded that the same was issued for the authority and not by the authority.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the event Part – B of the E-Way Bill was not being carried, no penalty is imposable. He further argues that in any event, the detaining authority does not have the jurisdiction to value the goods as has been done.
He further argues that even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the petitioner is liable, the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act can be attracted in this case and not Section 129(1)(b) of the Act as admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the goods in terms of the invoice issued in favour of the petitioner. He further argues that it is well settled that if the petitioner is either a consignor or a consignee, he has to be treated as a owner of the goods and thus, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act are not invokable as has been done by the department.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has to be treated as the owner of the goods in view of the law laid down in the case of M/s Margo Brush India (supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the orders impugned insofar as it imposes the burden on the petitioner to get the goods released in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act is bad in law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
