2022 (8) TMI 1043 - HC - GST

Vehicle Detention Upheld: Fraudulent Goods Description Invalidates Challenge Under Section 129 of CGST Act

The HC upheld detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 of CGST Act. The court found the show cause notice valid, rejecting the petitioner's ... Detention of vehicle - Aluminum scrap - mis-declaration of description of goods - it is alleged that the documents, which were being carried in the vehicle, were with a patently fraudulent declaration that the goods under transit was Aluminum scrap whereas actually, brand new brand Aluminum Sections wrapped in protective plastic packaging material was being transported - Section 68 read with Section 129 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts of the case at hand, it is clear that by portraying the goods in transit to be Aluminum scrap in the documents, the petitioner was indulging in blatant evasion of GST. By no stretch of imagination, can brand new Aluminum sections be placed on equivalence with Aluminum scrap. Apparently thus, the goods in question were fraudulently described as Aluminum scrap and hence, the respondent authorities were perfectly justified in detaining the petitioner’s vehicle and the goods after noticing this blatant mis-description during interception. Otherwise also, the show cause notice dated 08.06.2018 is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and hence the instant writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Issues:Detention of vehicle and goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act.Validity of show cause notice dated 08.06.2018.Appealability of the show cause notice under Section 107 of the CGST Act.Maintainability of the writ petition.Detention of Vehicle and Goods:The petitioner challenged the detention of their vehicle and goods by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion, Udaipur, alleging that the detention was illegal and in contravention of Section 68 read with Section 129 of the CGST Act and relevant guidelines. The petitioner's counsel argued that the goods were falsely described in the inspection memo, contending that a mere suspicion of mis-classification cannot warrant detention under Section 129. However, the respondent's counsel justified the detention, stating that the goods were fraudulently declared as Aluminum scrap while actually being brand new Aluminum sections, leading to a significant difference in value. The court observed that the mis-description of goods amounted to blatant evasion of GST, justifying the detention based on the fraudulent portrayal of the goods.Validity of Show Cause Notice:The petitioner sought to quash the show cause notice dated 08.06.2018 issued following the alleged illegal detention. The petitioner argued that the notice should be set aside as the detention itself was unlawful. In contrast, the respondent contended that the show cause notice was justified under Section 107 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the appealability of such notices. The court noted that the show cause notice was indeed appealable under Section 107, as highlighted in a Supreme Court judgment, thereby rejecting the petitioner's argument to quash the notice solely based on the detention's legality.Appealability of Show Cause Notice:The respondent cited a Supreme Court judgment to assert the appealability of the show cause notice under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the show cause notice in question fell within the ambit of appealable orders. By referencing the Supreme Court judgment, the court established the legal basis for the appealability of such notices, thereby reinforcing the respondent's position on the matter.Maintainability of Writ Petition:After considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the relevant judgments, the court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's attempt to challenge the detention and show cause notice was unfounded, given the fraudulent mis-description of goods and the appealability of the notice under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and rejected it, ruling in favor of the respondent.Conclusion:In summary, the court upheld the detention of the vehicle and goods, validated the show cause notice under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and deemed the writ petition as lacking merit, leading to its dismissal. The judgment emphasized the fraudulent mis-description of goods as a key factor in justifying the detention and highlighted the legal basis for the appealability of the show cause notice, ultimately ruling against the petitioner.