Taxpayer Challenges GST Authority's Order on Goods Ownership Claim Under Circular Provisions, Hearing Set for January 3

HC writ petition challenging GST authority's order rejecting ownership claim of goods. Petitioner argued circular provisions support ownership based on invoice and e-way bill. Court granted respondent time to seek written instructions, scheduled next hearing for January 3, 2023, with potential resolution contingent on security payment equivalent to penalty.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to impugned order rejecting ownership claim of goods based on GST circular, arbitrary decision by respondent authorities.

Analysis:
The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, which rejected the petitioner's claim of ownership of certain goods. The petitioner argues that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal, contending that it goes against Clause 6 of a clarificatory Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Circular states that if the invoice or specified documents accompany the goods, either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed as the owner. The petitioner asserts that the detained goods in question were accompanied by the tax invoice and eway bill, uploaded on the portal. Despite the specific criteria outlined in the Circular, the respondent authorities allegedly considered extraneous conditions not mentioned in the Circular.

During the hearing, the respondent GST authority's advocate requested time to seek written instructions on the matter. The court scheduled the next hearing for January 3, 2023, to allow the respondent's advocate to obtain proper instructions. It was clarified that the petitioner is prepared to pay security equivalent to the penalty under the relevant Act. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the GST circular regarding ownership of goods based on accompanying documents. The petitioner seeks a decision in line with the Circular's provisions, emphasizing the presence of required documents with the goods in question. The respondent authorities are urged to adhere to the Circular's guidelines and not introduce additional conditions during their determination of ownership. The court's decision is pending further instructions from the respondent's advocate, highlighting the importance of following established guidelines and legal provisions in such matters.

---