Kompress India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)
The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the writ petition and set aside the order. It held: (i) the vehicle was intercepted on 03.07.2023. It was inspected on the same day and order also came to be passed on the same day. The law requires 14 days time to be given to the assesse to respond. Hence, the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice; rejects Revenues contention that there was a dispute between buyer and seller and no one intended to take responsibility; however, does not remand the matter back; (ii) relies on circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by CBIC detailing procedure for detention and seizure; holds the respondents ought not to have detained the vehicle as circular is binding on the respondents; (iii) interprets section 22, section 24 and Rule 11 of the CGST Rules to hold that the supplier needs to be registered and not buyer; if contention of the respondents were to be accepted entire Indian population needs to be registered with GST department; this cannot be the intention; (iii) directs pre-deposit to be adjusted against future GST liability.
The petitioner is a dealer. It was transporting goods from Navi Mumbai to Tamil Nadu. It sold a compactor to HDFC. The vehicle was intercepted and detained. Driver produced invoice; E way Bill and other documents. However, Order imposing penalty came to be passed under section 129 of the CGST Act on the ground that registered address of the recipient was not mentioned. The said order was challenged in writ petition.
