TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities to forthwith release truck No.GJ-27-X-3752 along with the goods contained therein. 4. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm, which is inter alia engaged in the business of transport, procured about 61 different customers. On 16.5.2019 at 13:50 hours while the goods were in transit in vehicle No.GJ-27-X-3752, the third respondent - State Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Enforcement, Division-2, Ahmedabad intercepted the vehicle at Narol Char Rasta and found that the e-way bills of three parties, namely, Anjani Synthetics Limited dated 30.4.2019, Neelam Fabrics dated 15.5.2019 and Bhansali Cotfab dated 16.5.2019 were not generated. The statement of the driver in charge of the vehicle came to be recorded in Form GST MOV-1. It appears that the goods in respect of 58 customers wherein there were valid e-way bills came to be released; however, the vehicle with the goods in respect of the above three parties came to be detained on the spot on 16.5.2019 by issuing a notice in Form GST MOV -10 under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "CGST Act") as well as the Gujarat Goods and Services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed manner without application of mind and therefore also, the same is arbitrary and illegal is required to be set aside. It was further submitted that the goods were duly accompanied by tax invoice as well as transport receipt and only e-way bills of the above three customers could not be generated by the petitioner due to reasons which have been stated before the respondent authorities. It was submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of tax under the GST Acts and hence, the continued detention of the goods and the truck is arbitrary and illegal. It was accordingly, urged that the impugned order of confiscation deserves to be quashed and set aside and that the respondents are required to be directed to release the goods as well as the conveyance. 6. Opposing the petition, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader, placed reliance upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the third respondent wherein it is stated that the vehicle in question was confiscated on 16.5.2019 directly in exercise of powers under section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The ground for confiscation of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CGST Act/ GGST Act as well as other statutory provisions and it was found that certain discrepancies as reproduced hereunder were noticed: "(i) After verification of documents, tendered during the movement of goods in vehicle, valid e-way bill not generated for the following bills. a. Anjani Synthetic Limited bill no.F.1286/1920 dated:30.04.2019 b. Neelam Fabrics bill no.55 dated 15.05.2019 c. Bhansali Cotfab bill no.211 dated 16.05.2019 (ii) Transporter is aware about consolidated e-way bill as he has generated the same for 58 transactions of which goods transported through the same truck, while he has not included above mentioned 3 transaction in that consolidated e-way bill. In addition to that documents tendered for the goods in movement there are 14 bill of supply found without authorized signature and no clarification received from taxable persons. So those invoices are not valid invoices because not bearing signatures of suppliers. (iii) With reference to bill of M/s. Anjani Synthetics Ltd. Dated;30.04.2019, submitted that the goods was sent to transporter with bill of supply and e-way bill part - A on 30.04.2019, but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; DETAILS OF CONVEYANCE CONFISCATED SL No. Description Details 1 Conveyance Registration No. GJ 27 X 3752 2 Vehicle Description 3 Engine No. 4 Chasis No. It appears that the petitioner has also given an explanation dated 28.5.2019. 11. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.5.2019/28.5.2019 reveals that the notice in Form GST MOV- 10 dated 16.5.2019 was issued on 21.5.2019. By virtue of the impugned order, goods in respect of only three parties and the conveyance have been confiscated. The goods confiscated are in respect of the three parties referred to hereinabove. 12. In the impugned order in paragraph 5, it has been recorded thus: "5. The person in charge has not filed any objections/ the objections filed were found to be not acceptable for the reasons stated below: a) ......" Thereafter, in paragraph 6, it has been recorded thus:- "6. In view of the above, the following goods and conveyance are confiscated by the undersigned by exercising the powers vested under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and under section 130 of the State Goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee parties whose goods are sought to be confiscated. It has been stated by the third respondent that none of the purchasers/suppliers have given any explanation qua the 14 invoices which clearly indicates that even the affidavit-in-reply has been filed without proper application of mind, inasmuch as, the goods relating to the 14 invoices have not been confiscated. In the affidavit-in-reply, it has also been stated that mainly due to the fact that 14 invoices are not properly signed, the authorities have exercised powers under section 130 of the CGST Act and calculated tax, penalty and fine thereunder. If that be so, since none of the 14 invoices relate to the parties whose goods are confiscated, under the circumstances, the goods belonging to them could not have been confiscated by the respondent authorities. 15. In the light of the above discussion, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and Anjani Synthetics Limited and in undue haste. Moreover, despite the fact that out of 61 consignments, the third respondent has noticed deficiencies only in respect of three consig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubberstamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein ....