2022 (4) TMI 352 - HC - GST

Improper GST Seizure Overturned: Court Rules Authorities Failed to Verify Transaction Authenticity Despite Valid Tax Invoices

M/s A.S. Enterprise Versus Commissioner Of State Tax U.P. And 2 Others

The HC allowed the petition against goods seizure under GST laws, setting aside confiscation orders. The petitioner, transporting goods from Ludhiana to ... Demand of tax alongwith interest and penalty - absence of required documents at the stage of interception of the goods and physical verification - goods imported into the State of U.P. in contravention of law or not - Section 20 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute to the fact that the documents that were produced by the petitioner though at the stage of the show cause notice were original tax invoices issued by the petitioner. No enquiry was made to doubt the genuineness of such tax invoices or to doubt the date of issue of such invoices. Thus, all tax invoices produced by the petitioner to cover the disputed goods are dated 31.07.2021. No enquiry appears to have been made from the revenue authorities in the State of Punjab to confirm if the transactions were genuine. Then, it is not the case of the revenue that the goods found transported were different from the goods disclosed in the tax invoices produced by the petitioner. No enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities either from the purchasing dealers or the Assessing Authority to doubt the transaction at the end of the consignee. In view of the lack of enquiry and lack of reasonable doubt, the continued seizure and confiscation as also the demand of tax and penalty is based solely on presumptions and conjectures. While the mistake claimed by the petitioner gave rise to the valid suspicion with the revenue authorities inside State of U.P. as to the genuineness of the transaction as an inter-state sale claimed (at that stage orally), however, upon furnishing of the original tax invoices at the stage of the show cause notice itself, initial onus that rested on the assessee was discharged. The petitioner is a registered dealer. He has issued tax invoice after charging Integrated Goods and Services Tax. That evidence being undoubted, the seizure and confiscation and consequent demand of tax and penalty is based on no cogent material and evidence - though the detention did not suffer from any illegality, however, the further orders of the seizure etc. are found to be not based on any material or evidence on record. Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to order of First Appeal Authority confirming order of Assistant Commissioner under IGST Act, CGST Act, and UP GST Act regarding seizure and confiscation of goods in transit.Analysis:The petitioner claimed to be the owner of goods sold to dealers in Gwalior from Ludhiana, below E-way bill threshold. Goods were stopped in U.P. for checking, part found not covered by documents initially, later produced all documents. Detaining authority assumed goods being imported into U.P. unlawfully due to absence of documents during interception. However, all tax invoices produced by petitioner were genuine, dated 31.07.2021, no enquiry made by revenue authorities to confirm transactions' genuineness or goods' authenticity. Lack of enquiry and reasonable doubt led to continued seizure, confiscation, tax, and penalty demands based on presumptions and conjectures. Petitioner discharged initial onus by producing original tax invoices at show cause notice stage, as a registered dealer, issuance of tax invoice after charging IGST was undoubted evidence of transaction genuineness. Lack of cogent material and evidence led to setting aside of impugned orders and immediate release of goods and vehicle.In conclusion, while detention was not illegal, subsequent orders of seizure lacked basis in material or evidence. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, directing the immediate release of goods and vehicle.