TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the GST law can be initiated against a transporter or vehicle owner who is not shown to be a supplier, registered person, taxable person, or engaged in business of sale and purchase of goods. (ii) Whether the impugned show cause notices and proposed confiscation of vehicle were liable to be quashed on the ground that the transporter was only carrying goods under e-way bills and the dispute was essentially against the consignor or consignee.
Issue (i): Whether proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the GST law can be initiated against a transporter or vehicle owner who is not shown to be a supplier, registered person, taxable person, or engaged in business of sale and purchase of goods.
Analysis: The provisions governing detention, seizure and confiscation were held to apply to any person who transports goods in contravention of the Act or the Rules. The Court held that the decisive factor is not whether the person is a supplier, registered person or taxable person, but whether he is concerned in transporting goods that are liable to detention or confiscation. The statutory scheme of sections 122, 129 and 130 was read as wide enough to cover a transporter if the alleged contravention is established.
Conclusion: The challenge on this ground was rejected and the transporter was held amenable to proceedings under the GST provisions.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned show cause notices and proposed confiscation of vehicle were liable to be quashed on the ground that the transporter was only carrying goods under e-way bills and the dispute was essentially against the consignor or consignee.
Analysis: The Court found that the notice had not been shown to be illegal on the pleaded grounds and that disputed factual questions regarding the genuineness of documents, identity of the consignor and consignee, cancellation of registration, and alleged fraud could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings. It further observed that the petitioners had an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and that no interference was warranted at that stage. As to release of the vehicle, the Court held that the petitioners could seek appropriate relief before the trial court.
Conclusion: The show cause notices were not quashed and the prayer relating to release of the vehicle was declined in writ jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The common legal effect of the decision is that writ jurisdiction was declined to interfere with the detention and confiscation proceedings initiated against the transporters and vehicle owners, leaving them to avail remedies in the appropriate forum.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of sections 129 and 130 of the GST law, a transporter or vehicle owner may be proceeded against for goods in transit if the alleged contravention is made out, even if he is not the supplier or registered taxable person.
TaxTMI 
