TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Judicial Ruling Upholds Goods Detention by Authorities, Directs Petitioner to Seek Remedies Under CGST Act Section 107</h1> <h3>M/s Sonali Metal Industries LLP, Represented by its Designated Partner, Vinodh Babulal Mandot Versus The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Tvl S.S. Commercial Corporation, Tvl North East Infrastructure, Jeya Ganesh Transports</h3> M/s Sonali Metal Industries LLP, Represented by its Designated Partner, Vinodh Babulal Mandot Versus The State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Tvl S.S. ... Issues:1. Detention of goods based on suspicion without tangible evidence.2. Rejection of request for cross-examination by the authority.3. Dispute regarding the place of origin of goods.4. Applicability of Circular No. 10/2019 for penalty imposition by Roving Squad.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner, engaged in the supply and manufacture of enamelled copper using copper scrap as raw material, faced detention of 25,110 Kilograms of copper scrap by the Roving Squad on 13.05.2022 at Dharmapuri. The detention was due to a suspected transaction, leading to an order requiring further adjudication. The petitioner argued against detention based on mere suspicion, requesting tangible evidence of law violation. However, the authority rejected the request, citing the vendor's communication transferring ownership to the petitioner, who was responsible for compliance. The suspicion regarding the origin of goods from Telangana instead of Guwahati was raised based on toll booth records, but the petitioner failed to provide evidence to counter this suspicion, resulting in the impugned order.2. The petitioner's submission before the authority and the court highlighted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the detention and the need for cross-examination of relevant persons. Despite the petitioner's insistence, the authority rejected the request for cross-examination, relying on the vendor's communication transferring ownership. This refusal to allow cross-examination further complicated the dispute and added to the petitioner's challenges in proving the legitimacy of the transaction.3. The issue of the place of origin of goods emerged as a crucial point of contention in the adjudication proceedings. The suspicion raised by the authorities regarding the goods originating from Telangana instead of Guwahati was not effectively addressed by the petitioner. The failure to produce toll receipts or other evidence to refute this suspicion weakened the petitioner's position, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the writ petition by the court. The complexity of determining the actual place of origin of goods added layers to the legal dispute and underscored the importance of providing substantial evidence in such cases.4. The petitioner referenced Circular No. 10/2019, dated 31.05.2019, which outlines circumstances where penalties may not be imposed by the Roving Squad, offering exceptions related to tax rate, goods classification, place of supply, and goods valuation disputes. However, in this case, the issue of the place of origin of goods did not fall within the exceptions mentioned in the circular. Despite this reference, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's right to pursue an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and seek interim protection through the Appellate Authority within a specified timeline.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
