Timber Transport Dispute: GST Detention Highlights Procedural Gaps in E-way Bill Compliance and Statutory Remedy Pathways

HC ruled on a GST detention case involving timber transport discrepancies. The court found the factual disputes unsuitable for writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies through appellate forums under Section 107. The goods were detained due to mismatches in E-way bill, invoice, and actual consignment, with the vehicle seized under Section 129 of WBGST Act, 2017.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenging an order passed by the respondent GST authority under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act and WBGST Act, 2017 regarding the detention of goods due to discrepancies in the declaration made in the E-way bill and invoices, and the non-existence of the consignor at the registered place of business.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent GST authority under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act and WBGST Act, 2017. The respondent State GST authority conducted a physical verification of goods on 10th August, 2022, based on GST FORM MOV-03 issued for extending the date for physical checking. The verification revealed discrepancies, including an excess of approximately 312 cubic feet of teak sawn timber compared to the declared amount in the E-way bill and invoice. Additionally, the measurement details of the timber did not match the driver's slip. It was found that the vehicle was carrying a different consignment than what was mentioned in the tax invoice, E-way bill, and Certificate of Forest Department. Moreover, the consignor was not present at the registered place of business, indicating an attempt to avoid tax liability. Consequently, the goods were seized, and the vehicle was detained under Section 129 of the WBGST Act, 2017. A show cause notice was issued to the driver for contravention of Section 68 read with Section 129 and Rule 138 of the GST Act.

The High Court noted that the issue involved a highly disputed question of fact regarding the discrepancies in the declaration of the "Teak Sawn Timber" and the non-existence of the consignor at the registered place of business. The Court clarified that in the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it cannot act as a fact-finding authority over the transported goods in question. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the reasons for the detention of the goods and the order passed under Section 129(1) of the Act, the remedy lies in appealing before the appellate forum under Section 107 of the Act. The respondent was directed to provide a copy of the instruction to the petitioner's advocate for pursuing the appropriate statutory remedy either before the appellate forum or the concerned Officer as per the law. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

---