Agarwal Timber Suppliers v. State of Uttarakhand[2020] 114 taxmann.com 602 (Uttarakhand)
Single Eway Bill generated instead of Two Eway Bills due to error of the Consignor
Facts: Petitioner purchased timber from Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, a statutory Corporation created under section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation Act, 1974. Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation raised tax invoice on appellant-writ petitioner charging CGST and SGST on sale price of the goods. Petitioner paid said amount to Corporation even before goods were transported. The Corporation which, instead of raising two separate e-way bills for two separate consignments, had raised one e-way bill for the total amount on both the consignments.While goods were in transit, they were seized and, on ground that only one e-way bill was issued instead of two, a penalty of Rs. 1,70,688/- was sought to be levied on the appellant-writ petitioner. It was contended by Petitioner that penalty, if at all, should have been paid by Corporation, since error in issuing one e-way bill instead of two was on their part and not on part of appellant-writ petitioner.Jurisdiction of High Court was invoked under article 226 of Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed writ petition at the stage of admission relegating the appellant-writ petitioner to the remedy under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act”). Aggrieved thereby, Special Appeal was presented.
Held-: Hon’ble Court modified order of Single Judge and, directed appellant-writ petitioner to deposit entire amount of penalty i.e. for a sum of Rs. 1,70,688/- with concerned authorities, and furnish proof of deposit of said amount along with Appeal to be preferred under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act.
VE Commercial Vehcles Ltd. v. Union of India[2019] 110 taxmann.com 141 (Kerala)
Direction to the department to not to encash bank Guarantee furnished by appellant, if ultimately adjudication goes against them and if penalty is imposed in such proceedings, until the expiry of 14 days from the date of service of order on such adjudication
Appellant sought for an interim relief in writ petition to direct respondents not to encash Bank Guarantee furnished by petitioner at the time of release of the intercepted goods. The writ petition was preferred against order of Single Judge which was passed by observing that, appellant can work out their remedies under law against any order which may be passed and will be entitled to obtain orders from the appropriate forum. The learned Judge further observed that, putting any restrainment on encashment of bank Guarantee may result in deviating the conditions under which the release was already ordered.
Held: It was noticed by Hon’ble Court that writ petition was filed at a stage after release of the goods on the appellant furnishing the bank Guarantee with respect to the security deposit demanded. As observed by learned Single Judge, release of goods was effected on the basis of bank Guarantee furnished, in compliance with the requirement under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The interim relief sought for in the writ petition is to restrain encashment of the Bank Guarantee. If it is granted, it will amount to an order in anticipation that adjudication will culminate in imposition of penalty. If such an anticipatory restrainment is put on the respondents, as observed by learned Single Judge, that will be in a manner defeating the interest of respondents who ordered release of goods by securing probable amount which may be due after adjudication, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 129 of the Act. Therefore,Court did not find not find any illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hon’ble Court directed that interest of justice on equitable basis can be achieved by issuing a direction to respondents not to encash bank Guarantee furnished by appellant, if ultimately adjudication goes against them and if penalty is imposed in such proceedings, until the expiry of 14 days from the date of service of order on such adjudication.
RS Development And Constructions India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer Squad No. VIII, Palakkad, Kerala[2019] 110 taxmann.com 142 (Kerala); Grace International Logistics v. Assistant State Tax Officer[2019] 108 taxmann.com 284 (Kerala); [2019] 108 taxmann.com 288 (Kerala); Sanskruti Motorsv.Assistant State Tax Officer, Wayanad; Rajasthan Marbles v. Assistant State Tax Officer, Kochi [2019] 108 taxmann.com 98 (Kerala)
Issues raised are at preliminary stage and Court not convinced to entertain writ petition and adjudicate upon merits
Facts-The petitioner challenges notices issued as illegal and without jurisdiction The petitioner has contended that subject matter of notices and detention order is fully compliant with all requirements of the Act and petitioner was in a position to demonstrate within the time given by the authorities that Part B/E-Way Bill was also generated and produced for inspection.
Contention of Respondent- The learned Government Pleader objects to maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, it is contended that from admission has been made by petitioner that there is an omission or illegality in transportation of goods. The omission is that admittedly at the time of inspection or detention of goods the transporter could not produce all the documents required for establishing that the goods is under valid transit.
Held-It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that issues raised are at preliminary stage and Court was not convinced to entertain writ petition and adjudicate upon merits at this stage. As an interim relief, The petitioner was directed to submit bank guarantee for tax and penalty and apply for release of goods. The respondent was directed to release goods detained and subjected to enquiry within twelve hours from the date and time of receipt of bank guarantee.
Swastik Traders v. State of U.P.[2019] 108 taxmann.com 568 (Allahabad)
Matter Remanded Back to Appellate Authority as principle of Natural Justice not followed
Facts:- The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit, Faizabad not BEING satisfied with explanation made by petitioner and goods as well as vehicle were seized under Section 129 (1) of the UPGST Act vide Seizure Memo No.14 dated 19.12.2017 merely on the ground that Tax Invoice discloses the sale of Aluminium Section only whereas Aluminium Section and Aluminium Composite Sheets were found in the vehicle in question.Apart from seizing the goods and vehicle, Mobile Squad Officer issued a show cause notice being No.014 dated 19.12.2017 under Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act proposing to levy demand tax @ 18% on the total valuation of goods of Rs. 6,66,665/- i.e. amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- and equivalent amount of penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- (cumulatively Rs. 2,40,000/-) which was deposited by the petitioner by the Demand Draft.The petitioner was not satisfied with the levy of demand of tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- as the relevant documents were duly produced at the time of interception of the vehicle by the Mobile Squad Officer. As such, the petitioner preferred First Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeals) Ist, Commercial Tax, Ayodhya. By order dated 12.03.2019 served on 18.04.2019, the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 19.12.2017 passed under Section 129 (3) of the UPGST Act was upheld.
Held: It was observed by the Hon’ble Court that from perusal of record, position which emerges was that judgment and order dated 12.03.2019 had been passed without hearing to petitioner, as such, same was in violation of principles of natural justice. The writ petition was allowed and impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by opposite party was set aside. The matter was remanded back to Appellate Authority.
Shiv Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2019] 108 taxmann.com 329 (Allahabad)
Writ petition dismissed on account of availability of Alternative Remedy
Facts: Petitioners have challenged detention order dated 06.06.2019 and penalty notice dated 06.06.2019 broadly on the ground of jurisdictionCommissioner of State Tax, U.P., Lucknow under GST in seizing consignment of goods, which were coming from Panipat (Haryana) to Lucknow.
Held-The fact pertaining to passing of final order has not been disputed by the counsel petitioners. In view of the fact that the final order has been passed against which petitioners have got a statutory remedy of appeal, High Court was not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition was dismissed.
