TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Detention upheld under CGST Act due to documentation discrepancies, release secured with bank guarantee</h1> The court upheld the detention of goods and a vehicle under Section 129 of the CGST Act due to discrepancies in documentation, emphasizing that the ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - detention on the ground that a verification of the documents that accompanied the goods showed that the consignor and consignee are two different entities with different GISTINs and the transaction in question was supposedly a stock transfer - HELD THAT:- The definition of supply under Section 7 is not confined to transactions of sale but includes transfer for other purposes also. Under such circumstances, the detention is not found to be unjustified. However, the petitioner is permitted to obtain a release of the vehicle and the goods from the 1st respondent on furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in Ext.P7 order. Petition disposed off. Issues:Detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 of the CGST Act based on discrepancies in documentation.Analysis:The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 notice and Ext.P7 determination order under Section 129 of the CGST Act, which detained their goods and vehicle due to discrepancies in the accompanying documents. The documents indicated different entities as the consignor and consignee with distinct GISTINs, suggesting a stock transfer. The petitioner argued that Rule 55 of the CG & ST Rules exempts generating an invoice for non-supply transportation. However, the petitioner failed to justify why this specific transportation should be considered other than a supply. The petitioner contended that since there was no transfer of ownership, the transaction was not a sale. The court noted that the definition of supply under Section 7 includes transfers for various purposes beyond sale. Consequently, the detention was deemed justified. Nonetheless, the petitioner was allowed to secure the release of the goods and vehicle by providing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount specified in Ext.P7. The matter was directed to be referred for adjudication under the SGST Act and Rules, with the petitioner instructed to submit a copy of the writ petition and judgment to the 1st respondent for further proceedings.This judgment highlights the importance of adherence to documentation requirements under the CGST Act and Rules to avoid detention of goods and vehicles. It clarifies that the definition of supply is not limited to sales but encompasses transfers for other purposes as well. The court's decision to allow release upon furnishing a bank guarantee demonstrates a balanced approach considering the circumstances of the case. The directive for adjudication under the SGST Act ensures a formal resolution process for the parties involved, emphasizing the legal procedures to be followed in such matters. Overall, the judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of relevant provisions and the course of action to be taken in similar cases of detention related to GST compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
