2024 (9) TMI 1216 - HC - GST

Landmark GST Ruling: Transporters Win Right to Challenge Goods Seizure with Comprehensive Documentation Review

M/s Coromandel International Limited Versus The Deputy Assistant Commissioner II and Others

M/s Coromandel International Limited Versus The Deputy Assistant Commissioner II and Others - TMI Issues: Refund of penal amounts paid by petitioners for seized goods transported without proper documents under GST regime.In this judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the court addressed the issue of whether the penal amounts paid by the petitioners for goods seized by Commercial Tax Authorities, due to lack of proper documents during transportation in the GST regime, should be refunded. The transition from the earlier sales tax regime to the Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 led to confusion regarding the documents required for the movement of goods. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 24.07.2017, allowing intrastate and interstate movement of goods with e-way bills. Despite lacking e-way bills, the petitioners had other proof of title and purchase. Tax authorities detained goods for non-compliance with G.O. Ms. No. 309, leading to detention and confiscation orders. The petitioners challenged these actions through writ petitions before the High Court.A Division Bench of the High Court set guidelines to determine the legitimacy of goods movement under the GST regime. The petitioners argued that this interim order should be treated as final for the writ petitions' disposal. However, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioners should have been aware of the G.O.s and obtained e-way bills. The court, after reviewing the Division Bench's order, agreed with its findings and directives. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directions.The court directed the authorities to determine if the goods movement by petitioners was proper under the guidelines. The petitioners could submit additional documents to prove bona fide movement. They were given two weeks to provide further evidence. The authorities were instructed to decide on the refund of amounts paid by petitioners within six weeks. No costs were awarded, and pending petitions were closed. The judgment clarified the requirements for goods movement under the GST regime and provided a framework for assessing the legitimacy of such movements to decide on refund claims.