Court quashes notice, orders goods release, interprets circular on errors, favors petitioner in GST case

The Court quashed the notice issued by respondent no.3, ordered the release of goods and the seized vehicle, and interpreted a government circular regarding minor errors in vehicle numbers. Despite authorities initiating proceedings under the CGST Act due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number, the Court found in favor of the petitioner, citing inadvertent human error and harassment. The Court directed the immediate release of goods and the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond, emphasizing justice and fair treatment.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of notice dated 18.09.2018 passed by respondent no.3
2. Release of goods and the vehicle seized by Mobile Squad-9, Kanpur
3. Interpretation of Circular No. 64/34/2018-GST issued by the Government of India
4. Initiation of proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act
5. Seizure of goods due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number
6. Claim of inadvertent human error in mentioning the vehicle number
7. Allegation of harassment of the petitioner/dealer by the authorities

Analysis:

1. The writ petition sought to quash a notice dated 18.09.2018 issued by respondent no.3 and requested the release of goods and the vehicle seized by Mobile Squad-9, Kanpur. The petitioner argued that the seizure was based on frivolous grounds, leading to unnecessary harassment.

2. The Court considered a circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing. The circular, particularly Clause 5(f), stated that minor errors in vehicle numbers should not lead to the initiation of proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

3. Despite the circular's provisions, the authorities initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act and the IGST Act due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number mentioned in the documents. The petitioner claimed that the error was a result of inadvertent human mistake during document preparation.

4. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the authorities' handling of the situation, noting that the discrepancy in the vehicle number was a minor error that should not have led to such drastic actions. The Court viewed the seizure as a case of harassment against the petitioner, a registered dealer.

5. Consequently, the Court directed the immediate release of the goods and the vehicle. As a measure, the petitioner was instructed to furnish an indemnity bond equivalent to the penalty amount demanded. The Court's decision was in favor of the petitioner, allowing the writ petition and highlighting the importance of justice and fair treatment in such matters.

---