2018 (12) TMI 138 - HC - GST

Transporter must comply with Section 129 for goods release.

DAILY EXPRESS Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO. 8, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAUPURAM AND STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality of the detention notices and requiring the transporter petitioner to comply with Section ... Detention of goods with vehicle - goods detained on the ground Part B of the accompanied e-way bill has not completed - Section 129(3) of GST Act - Held that:- The petitioner may not insist on the provisional release of the goods, but contest the matter before the State Tax Officer. It may then invite an order under Section 129 and 130. Then, Perhaps, every plea including those provided under Section 126 may be available. But if the petitioner desires to have the interim release of the goods, there is no escape from Section 129. As with Section 74, it is evident that the provision concerns the assessment but not transport and its interception, much less the detention and the provisional release. Exts.P5 to P7 notices of detention do not suffer from any legal infirmity - petition dismissed. Issues:Detention of goods due to incomplete e-way bill | Applicability of Section 129 to transporters | Interpretation of Sections 126, 122 in relation to Section 129Detention of Goods due to Incomplete E-way Bill:The petitioner, a transporter, had goods detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer due to an incomplete e-way bill, leading to the issuance of a notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner sought release of the goods, arguing that the detention was unwarranted as it was merely a transporter and not directly involved in the GST scheme. The petitioner's counsel contended that the transaction was genuine, with no tax evasion, and referenced Section 126 to support the exemption of minor discrepancies not involving tax evasion from detention under Section 129.Applicability of Section 129 to Transporters:The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 129 does not apply to transporters, as they are not directly involved in the GST scheme. However, the Government Pleader asserted that Section 129 is a self-contained code for the provisional release of goods, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with its provisions to secure provisional custody of detained goods. The Court noted that the petitioner's status as a transporter did not exempt it from complying with Section 129(1)(b) if interested in the goods, as per the Act.Interpretation of Sections 126, 122 in Relation to Section 129:The Court examined the interplay between Sections 126 and 129, noting that Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause, indicating its self-contained nature for provisional release of goods. Reference to Section 126, which addresses penalties for minor breaches, suggested that while the petitioner could contest the matter before the State Tax Officer, compliance with Section 129 was necessary for interim release of goods. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's compliance with Section 129(1)(b) did not preclude presenting a defense before the State Tax Officer regarding the detention issue.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the detention notices and requiring the petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(b) for the release of goods, while preserving the right to present a defense before the State Tax Officer on the detention matter.