Court Notice Addresses Detention of Perishable Goods Under GST Act

The court issued a notice returnable on a specified date in response to the petitioner's advocate's submissions regarding the detention of perishable goods. The court acknowledged the arguments concerning the proper application of Circular No.41/15/2018-GST and Circular No.64/38/2018-GST, emphasizing the necessity of following the prescribed procedures before detaining goods under section 129 of the CGST Act. The notice indicated a proactive approach by the court in addressing the concerns raised and signaled a preliminary step towards resolving the issues surrounding the detention order and the interpretation of relevant circulars in cases involving perishable goods.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Circular No.41/15/2018-GST regarding inspection proceedings and issuance of release order.
2. Application of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST in cases of accompanied consignments to prevent initiation of proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act.
3. Consideration of perishable goods in detention cases.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's advocate highlighted the presence of tax invoice and e-way bill during the interception of perishable goods. Referring to Circular No.41/15/2018-GST, it was argued that the inspection process, as outlined in the circular, was not followed properly. The circular mandates the issuance of FORM GST MOV-04 after physical verification, along with recording the final report in FORM GST-EWB-03 on the common portal within three days. Since these steps were not completed, the advocate contended that no discrepancies were found and requested the immediate release of the goods under FORM GST MOV-05. However, FORM GST MOV-06 was issued, detaining the goods under section 129 of the CGST Act, without following the circular's procedure.

2. Additionally, reference was made to Circular No.64/38/2018-GST, emphasizing that if a consignment is accompanied by an invoice and e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act should not be initiated. As there were no discrepancies in the invoice and e-way bill in the present case, it was argued that the detention order under section 129 was unnecessary. The circular's provisions were cited to support the argument against the detention order.

3. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate and acknowledging the perishable nature of the goods in question, the court issued a notice returnable on a specified date. The court permitted direct service on the same day, indicating a prompt response to the issues raised regarding the detention of the perishable goods. The court's decision to issue a notice reflects a preliminary step towards addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the detention order and the application of relevant circulars in the case involving perishable goods.

---