2024 (6) TMI 1160 - HC - GST

Importers Win: Documentation Gaps Resolved, Goods Release Ordered Under GST Compliance Principles

Company challenged detention of imported goods due to missing delivery challan. HC examined documentation including E-way bill, Advance Authorisation ... Detention of goods - levy of penalty - absence of the delivery challan - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the Advance Authorisation Certificate. The said document specifies the name and address of the Karnataka Unit to which the goods were transported. The GST Registration Certificate of the petitioner specifies the list of additional places of business. This list includes the Karnataka Unit to which the goods were transported. The Bill of Entry is on record as also the E-way Bill. The E-way Bill indicates the name of the exporter. It is certainly arguable that the delivery challans are required to be sent directly by the principal to the job worker in cases wherein the goods moved directly to the job worker. When these facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively, this is an appropriate case to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's request for release of goods expeditiously subject to production of relevant delivery challans. The writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order and directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's request for release of goods. Issues: Challenge to detention and penalty imposed on goods due to lack of delivery challan.Analysis:1. Facts: The petitioner, a company dealing in natural food ingredients, imported goods and transported them to its Karnataka unit. The goods were intercepted, and a penalty was imposed due to the absence of a delivery challan. 2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the goods were transported with proper documentation, including an E-way bill specifying the Karnataka unit as the destination. The petitioner also highlighted the Advance Authorisation Certificate and GST Registration Certificate listing the Karnataka unit as a supporting manufacturer. 3. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that without a delivery challan, the chain of documentation establishing the flow of goods from exporter to recipient was incomplete. The respondent emphasized the necessity of proper documentation under GST law. 4. Court's Analysis: The court considered the documents provided by the petitioner, including the Advance Authorisation Certificate, GST Registration Certificate, Bill of Entry, and E-way Bill. It noted that the CBIC's clarification allowed for the direct dispatch of delivery challans in certain cases, such as goods moving directly to the job worker. 5. Decision: The court set aside the order of detention and directed the respondent to reconsider the release of goods upon the production of relevant delivery challans. The respondent was instructed to make a decision by a specified date, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in the transportation of goods.This judgment highlights the significance of maintaining proper documentation in the transportation of goods to establish a clear chain of custody from exporter to recipient, as required under GST law. The court's decision to consider the petitioner's request for release of goods upon the production of delivery challans underscores the importance of adherence to regulatory requirements in such matters.