2024 (11) TMI 589 - HC - GST

Vehicle detention penalty set aside when goods had proper invoices and E-way bills before registration suspension

M/s Lakhdatar Traders Versus State of UP And 2 Others

HC allowed writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 129 CGST Act and Section 20 IGST Act. Petitioner's vehicle was intercepted while ... Challenge to proceedings initiated u/s 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act - penalty order - movement of goods without proper documents - HELD THAT:- The facts are not in dispute that the documents in question which were accompanied the goods, were dated 01.10.2024 and at the time of interception of the vehicle, the requisites were found. The notice issued by the respondents indicated the fact of the registration being suspended by the jurisdictional authorities at Bihar on 03.10.2024, based on which, the penalty has been imposed under provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Halder Enterprises [2023 (12) TMI 514 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein, the goods were intercepted on 03.10.2023 and the suspension took place on 06.10.2023 w.e.f. 18.09.2023, after referring to the orders of this Court in M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. and another, [2023 (6) TMI 360 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s Sanjay Sales Agency v. State of U.P. and another, 2023 [2023 (10) TMI 641 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], and provisions of Section 129 came to the conclusion that once the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to the petitioner, the circular dated 31.12.2018 would apply and the petitioner would be deemed to be owner of the goods and the same was to be released in terms of Section 129 (1) (a) of the CGST Act. In the present case also, as noticed hereinbefore this is not the case of the respondents that the goods were not accompanied with proper tax invoice and E-way bill and only on account of the fact that the registration was suspended on 03.10.2024 that the action has been initiated and the order impugned has been passed as such the issue stands covered. The impugned order is set aside - petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to proceedings under Section 129 of CGST Act and Section 20 of IGST Act, demand of penalty order, detention order, validity of notice issued, suspension of registration, justification of penalty imposition.Analysis:The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act, along with a penalty order and detention order. The petitioner's vehicle was intercepted by authorities while en route from Bihar to Gurugram. The authorities detained the goods for allegedly moving without proper documents and issued a notice indicating the suspension of the petitioner's registration. The petitioner contested the notice and penalty order, arguing that the registration suspension was unjustified as the requisite documents were with the vehicle. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in a similar case. The Standing counsel supported the impugned order, claiming the petitioner obtained registration with fake documents, justifying the penalty imposition.The Court considered the submissions and examined the evidence on record. It noted that the documents accompanying the goods were dated before the registration suspension date. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that if goods are accompanied by proper tax invoices and E-way bills, the petitioner is deemed the owner, and goods should be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. Since the respondents did not dispute the presence of proper documents with the goods, the penalty imposition based on registration suspension was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the penalty order dated 16.10.2024 and directed the authorities to release the goods within two weeks in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.