Detention of goods unlawful when valid return e-way bills exist; no Section 34 CGST credit note needed during re-transportation

HC allowed the petition, holding detention of goods was illegal where they were accompanied by e-way bills generated for return. The Court found a credit note under s.34 CGST is not required at the stage of re-transportation before recipient receipt; credit/debit notes serve only to adjust tax liability where tax was overcharged or goods are returned, and must be issued by the supplier and declared in the monthly return when issued. The procedure/system could not be used to penalize the supplier where return e-way bills were valid and detention was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Requirement of Credit Note issuance under Section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017.
3. Legality of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Detention Notice:
The petitioner challenged the notice dated 30.12.2022 issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, seeking to impose a penalty. The notice stated that the goods were moving from Tiruppur to Chennai without proper documentation, invoking Section 129. The petitioner argued that the consignment of solar panels was initially transported to Tiruppur but had to be returned to Chennai due to the consignee's refusal to accept delivery because the goods got wet. Fresh e-way bills were generated for this return trip. The High Court found that the goods were accompanied by valid e-way bills and thus, the detention was illegal and unwarranted.

2. Requirement of Credit Note Issuance:
The respondents contended that a Credit Note should have been issued under Section 34 for the returned goods. The petitioner argued that the issuance of a Credit Note or Debit Note arises only after the delivery is taken and goods are returned, which was not the case here as the consignee refused to accept the goods. The Court agreed with the petitioner, stating that Credit Notes are intended for tax adjustments and are not required when goods are returned without being received by the recipient.

3. Legality of the Penalty:
The petitioner paid the penalty to salvage the wet and damaged goods, arguing that the payment was not voluntary. The respondents maintained that the payment concluded the proceedings under Section 129(5). The Court noted that the system for payment under GST only allows for voluntary payments and does not provide an option for payment under protest. Given that the detention was illegal, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not required to issue a Credit Note at the stage when the goods were being returned. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

---