Case Law Details
F S Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Insofar as the Lorry Receipt issued by the transporter is concerned, carrying the same is not a requirement prescribed under rule 138A(1) of the rules. It was submitted that under the circumstances, in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the respondents to make an order of detention under section 129(1) of the CGST Act for any deficiency in the lorry receipt issued by the transporter, the impugned order of detention is without authority of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to the Form GST MOV-06 whereby the vehicle as well as the goods of the petitioner have been detained under section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”) and the other relevant statutory provisions, to submit that the order of detention has been made on the ground that the lorry receipt issued by the transporter is photocopy without computerized serial number and contact number details. The attention of the court was invited to section 68 of the CGST Act, to point out that the same provides that the Government may require the person in-charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. Reference was made to rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to point out the nature of the documents and devices which are required to be carried by a person in-charge of a conveyance. Referring to sub-rule (1) thereof, it was submitted that the person in-charge of a conveyance is required to carry – (a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and (b) a copy of the e-way bill in physical form or the e-way bill number in electronic form or mapped to a Radio Frequency Identification Device embedded on to the conveyance in such manner as may be notified by the Commissioner. It was submitted that therefore, in case either of these documents are not carried by the person in-charge of the conveyance, the respondents would be justified in resorting to action under section 129 of the CGST Act. Insofar as the Lorry Receipt issued by the transporter is concerned, carrying the same is not a requirement prescribed under rule 138A(1) of the rules. It was submitted that under the circumstances, in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the respondents to make an order of detention under section 129(1) of the CGST Act for any deficiency in the lorry receipt issued by the transporter, the impugned order of detention is without authority of law.
2. This court has also heard Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. Prima facie, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner appears to be valid. Under the circumstances, a prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim relief as prayed for in the petition.
4. Stand over to 18thApril, 2019. By way of further interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the truck No.GJ-04-AW 1999 along with the goods contained therein.
Direct Service is permitted.
