PAXAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRY (P) LTD., VERSUS ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) , STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SQUAD II, CHENGANNUR, COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,

Detention of Consignment invoices – the driver of the truck by negligence failed to carry the invoices showing the transaction between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent – Section 129 of GST Act – HELD THAT:- This court would not be an appropriate authority to adjudicate the controversy to either of the human error or intentional or willful. It would be the domain of the adjudicating authority – For the time being, the goods detained can be released, subject to the compliance of conditions referred to in Sec.129(1) of the Act and Rule 43 of 2017. In case the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee along with other charges, as per the provisions of Sec.129, on deposit of the requisite Bank Guarantee, the goods and the vehicle detained are ordered to be released; subject to the outcome of the controversy by adjudicating authority.

No.- WP(C).No.7980 OF 2020(V)

Dated.- March 16, 2020

MR. AMIT RAWAL J.

PETITIONER/S:  BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)

RESPONDENT/S: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES  

JUDGMENT

The present Writ Petition is directed against the action initiated by the respondents detaining the consignments invoices covered by Ext.P-1 and P-2 and detained by Ext.P-8 and P-9.

2. The learned counsel on the behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner being a private limited company, established in the year 1984 had been working without any legal hassles. On the basis of the purchase order placed by the 3rd respondent at Kollam in Kerala, the petitioner being distributor of Godrej Industries, placed orders for certain goods to Godrej Industries. For the aforementioned purpose, the service of Kerala Roadways (KRS), a transporter, was engaged to collect the goods from Valia, Bharuch District in Gujarat.

3. The aforementioned transporter was entrusted with two consignments and in this regard, two tax invoices were raised by the Godrej Industries on the same day i.e. on 17th February, 2020. The tax invoices envisaged the delivery of consignment to be at Kollam while the petitioner with Bangalore Address was named as consignee. The invoices of Godrej Industries revealed the fact that the delivery was to be at Kollam by Kerala Road Ways. The documents were delivered to the transporter’s office in Bangalore. Unfortunately, the driver of the truck by negligence failed to carry the said invoices showing the transaction between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. On 24.02.2020, the vehicle was intercepted and found that the documents tendered by the driver of the transportation of the consignments from Gujarat to Kollam were defective, resulting into detention order Ext.P8 and 9. He submits this as a human error, as E-Way bill reflected entry of Kollam. Therefore the detention as per Sec.129 is not sustainable.

4. Dr. Thushara James, the learned government pleader submits that opening line of the Sec.129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act that in case of any violation, goods are liable to be detained.

5. Having heard, I am of the view that this court would not be an appropriate authority to adjudicate the controversy to either of the human error or intentional or willful. It would be the domain of the adjudicating authority. For the time being, the goods detained can be released, subject to the compliance of conditions referred to in Sec.129(1) of the Act and Rule 43 of 2017. In case the petitioner furnishes the bank guarantee along with other charges, as per the provisions of Sec.129, on deposit of the requisite Bank Guarantee, the goods and the vehicle detained are ordered to be released; subject to the outcome of the controversy by adjudicating authority. It is made clear that the respondents will not en-cash the bank guarantee till the controversy involved is adjudicated by the concerned authority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *