Alfa Group v. Assistant State Tax Officer  113 taxmann.com 222 (Kerala)
Issue-Detention on ground that value quoted in E-Way bill is less than MRP is not valid since no provision in GST mandates that goods cannot be sold on a value less than MRP
Facts of the Case- Goods belonging to petitioner were detained in a parcel godown, on the ground that value quoted in invoice that accompanied goods was low when compared to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of goods. There was a further averment therein that HSN code of goods was wrongly entered.
Held: None of the reasons justify detention of goods. There is no provision under GST Act which mandates that goods shall not be sold at prices below the MRP declared thereon. There is nothing that shows that, on account of alleged wrong classification of the goods there was any difference in rate of tax that was adopted by the assessee.
In the view of Court, statutory scheme of GST Act is such as to facilitate a free movement of goods, after self-assessment by assessee concerned. Respondents cannot resort to an arbitrary and statutorily unwarranted detention of goods in the course of transportation. Such action on the part of department officers can erode public confidence in the system of tax administration in our country and, as a consequence, the country’s economy itself.
Detention order was quashed and respondents were directed to forthwith release goods belonging to petitioner. Commissioner, Kerala State Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram was directed to issue suitable instructions to field formations so that such unwarranted detentions are not resorted to in future.
V. Muhammed Rasheed v. Assistant State Tax Officer  114 taxmann.com 472 (Kerala)
Issue-Goods to be released on furnishing bank guarantee of tax and penalty
The goods were detained as during transportation of goods, they were not accompanied by valid documents as prescribed under the GST Act.
It was held by the Court that detention was prima facie justified and therefore writ petition was disposed, by directing respondent to release goods and vehicle to petitioner on petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for tax and penalty amount determined by the respondent and the respondent shall, thereafter, proceed to adjudicate the matter in terms of section 130 of the GST Act, after hearing the petitioner.
Sanjaybhai Laxmanbhai Gogara v. State of Gujarat  114 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat); Raj Chamunda Roadlines v. State of Gujarat  115 taxmann.com 35 (Gujarat)
Facts and Contention of Petitioner-The vehicle in question together with goods came to be detained for the purpose of verification. By an order made in Form GST-MOV-03, time for inspection came to be extended for a further period of three days. It was pointed out that accordingly physical verification of the goods came to be carried and Form GST-MOV-04 came to be issued wherein no discrepancy was found in respect of the goods in question. Despite the aforesaid position, respondents proceeded under section 130 of “CGST Act” by issuing notice in Form GST-MOV-10 on the ground that after checking the dealers record according to the GST system, dealer appears to be involved in bogus billing practice or making false claim of ITC for the period of August, 2019 and September, 2019. It was submitted that thereafter, on the same ground an order has been passed under section 130 of the CGST Act confiscating the goods and the vehicle in question. It was submitted that in the absence of any discrepancy in the documents and the goods, it is not permissible for the respondents to confiscate either the vehicle or the goods.
Held: Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue notice.
Vivan Steel (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat  113 taxmann.com 346 (Gujarat)
Issue-Goods to be released on payment of tax and penalty
It was stated by counsel to the petitioner that petitioner was ready and willing to pay amount of tax and penalty in terms of impugned notice issued under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, respondents were directed to forthwith release Truck number GJ-02-Y-6566 together with goods contained therein upon petitioner paying the tax and penalty as reflected in the column number 4(1) (2) of the impugned notice issued under section 130 of the CGST Act.
Bright Road Logistics v. Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement – 09)  113 taxmann.com 204 (Karnataka)
Issue-Once a Notice has been issued to transporter to file objections then proper officer cannot turn around and take a decision that transporter has no locus standi either to file objections or to put forth dispute on behalf of the consignor/consignee or owner of conveyance
Petitioner a transporter, registered under provisions of GST Act was engaged in business of transportation of goods. It was submitted that petitioner was approached by M/s. Bhima Trading Company for transporting certain scrap goods to consignee, M/s. Rajendra Traders. Thus, role of petitioner was only a transporter to transport goods from Salem to New Delhi. Accordingly, petitioner used its conveyance to transport and during the transit from Salem to New Delhi. Respondent intercepted said conveyance for verifying genuiness of transaction and veracity of accompanied documents. Driver of conveyance furnished lorry receipts, E-way Bill and Tax Invoice. A show-cause notice dated 11.10.2019 was issued to the petitioner under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act on the premise that the consignor is non-existent. Respondent proceeded to pass the order under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act holding that petitioner has no locus to dispute or raise issue either on behalf of the consignor/consignee or the person in charge of the conveyance.
Contention of the Petitioner– Respondent having issued show-cause notice to petitioner, in arriving at a decision that petitioner has no locus standi to either file objections or raise dispute on behalf of consignor/consignee or person in charge of the conveyance is wholly illegal.
Contention of Respondent- Petitioner is neither consignor nor consignee for release of the goods. Proceedings under Section 130(2)(iii) and the proviso thereof is applicable to the release of the conveyance. It is not mandatory for the petitioner to make the payment towards penalty determined under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act.
Held: The Court was of considered opinion that order impugned cannot be held to be justifiable for reason that respondent having issued show-cause notice calling upon petitioner to file objections, cannot turn around and take a decision that petitioner has no locus standi either to file objections or to put forth dispute on behalf of the consignor/consignee or owner of conveyance. The order impugned was held to be against principles of natural justice which is the fundamental parameter required to be observed by the quasi- judicial authority. The impugned order dated 22.10.2019 was quashed and proceedings were restored to the file of respondent. The respondent were directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner and after considering the objections filed/to be filed by the petitioner shall decide the matter in accordance with law in an expedite manner.