#GSTCase-113:-Cases on E-Way Bill-Whether proceedings under Section 130 be initiated without resorting to proceedings under section 130 and Detention of conveyance of Transporter wherein it was found in enquiry that GSTIN was taken on documents taken against payment of certain amount
- Issue: Can Proceedings under Section 130 be initiated without resorting to proceedings under Section 129
Synergy Fertichem (P.) Ltd. v.State of Gujarat  103 taxmann.com 426 (Gujarat),
Super Powder Coating Anodizing And Trading v. Union of India  110 taxmann.com 101 (Gujarat),
Bharatkumar Parambhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat  110 taxmann.com 143 (Gujarat),
Khamal Rameshbhai Valabhai v. State of Gujarat  110 taxmann.com 133 (Gujarat),
Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Suppliers v. State of Gujarat  108 taxmann.com 263 (Gujarat),
Sri Krishna Traders v. State of Gujarat  108 taxmann.com 190 (Gujarat),
Shahil Traders v. State of Gujarat  108 taxmann.com 264 (Gujarat),
Jainam Cables India (p.) Ltd. v. Union of India  107 taxmann.com 247 (Gujarat),
Swaminarayan Traders v. State Tax Officer  107 taxmann.com 245 (Gujarat),
Vivek Ramvilas Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax  107 taxmann.com 59 (Gujarat)
Contention of the Appellant: It was submitted that it is only if there is no compliance of the order passed under section 129 of the Act, that the provisions of section 130 of the IGST Act can be resorted to. The attention of the court was invited to the impugned show cause notice dated 1.3.2019, to submit that the same seeks to impose penalty, redemption fine and confiscation under section 130 of the Act without initiating any proceedings under section 129 of the Act, which is not permissible in law.
Held: The moot question that needs to be determined in the present writ application is with regard to the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST respectively. The main issue will be decided in accordance with law.
- Issue: Detention of Conveyance of the Transporter in the vent of Owner of the Goods not coming forward for release of Goods and on enquiry it was found that the GSTIN was taken on the basis of documents taken against payment of certain amount
Bharat Vijay Transport Co. v. State of Gujarat  106 taxmann.com 71 (Gujarat)
Facts: In this case conveyance in question was apprehended on the apprehension of defective bills and lorry receipts. in case of two lorry receipts viz. No. 155609 and 155616 issued to M/s Standard Sales Corporation that owner of goods did not turned up for getting the goods released and upon inquiry it is found that the GSTN stated in the e-way bill etc. have been obtained on the basis of the adhar card, PAN and mobile number of one Mahendrabhai Venilal Solanki who had permitted one Vipulbhai to use such documents for obtaining GST registration upon payment of some amount to him.
However, though the statement of Mahendrabhai has been recorded in January, 2019 no criminal proceedings have been instituted against him nor has any complaint been filed before the police in respect of such offence. No steps have been taken against the said Mahendrabhai under section 122(xxii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Observation: It appears that GSTN has been given without proper inquiry as contemplated under the Act and the rules, which is on account of default on the part of the concerned authorities. However, it appears that instead of tracing out the real culprit, the respondents are seeking the easy way out by penalising the transporter who prima facie does not appear to have doubted the person who engaged it for transport of the goods as an invoice and e-way bill were produced by him, and recovering the tax, penalty and fine from him.
Held: It is evident that the authority concerned has not applied its mind to the objections raised by the petitioner and has perfunctorily passed the impugned order confiscating the conveyance of the petitioner. By way of interim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the conveyance being Truck No.GJ-01-BY-5326 of the petitioner, subject to a responsible partner of the petitioner firm filing an undertaking before this court, within a period of two days from today, that in the event the petitioner fails in the petition or is otherwise found to be liable under the CGST/GGST Act, the petitioner shall forthwith discharge such liability without prejudice to its rights to challenging such order before the appropriate forum.