2020 (3) TMI 565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Gajularamaram, Hyderabad (2nd respondent). 2. The petitioner was allotted GST No.36AAMPA4421B2ZC. 3. The petitioner purchased goods from a dealer M/s. JSW Steel Limited, Vidyanagar, Karnataka vide Tax Invoice No.19UJ2900401551 dt.11.12.2019 valued at Rs. 3,52,920.74. 4. Against the said tax invoice under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act (I.G.S.T.), tax at Rs. 18% was levied coming to Rs. 63,526/-. The plea of the petitioner 5. According to petitioner, when the consignment was coming from Vidyanagar, Karnataka with all requisite documents through a vehicle bearing No.KA 35 C 0141, it was detained at Jeedimetla at 05:30 p.m. on 12.12.2019, and a notice under Section 129 (3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the reason 'wrong destination' given by the respondents is not a good and sufficient reason for levying and collecting tax and penalty from the petitioner and the detention of the goods and the vehicle as well as collection of tax and penalty, is contrary to the provisions of G.S.T. Act, 2017. 9. It is also contended that penalty cannot be levied unless there is willfulness and contumacious conduct of the dealer, and therefore, the petitioner should be granted a refund of the amount of Rs. 4,16,447/- levied and collected under both the Central Tax Act and the State Tax Act, 2017. The stand of the 1st respondent 10. Counter-affidavit was filed by 1st respondent contending that there was no pressure on the dealer to pay the tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....local market evading levies both under the CGST and SGST. It is stated that the 1st respondent had authorisedly issued the impugned notice on 11.12.2019 to detain the goods. 15. It was also stated that the 1st respondent had valid authorization to detain the vehicle with the goods. The Consideration by the Court 16. We have noted the contentions of both sides. 17. Admittedly, it was mentioned in the order of detention of the vehicle and the consignment carried thereon from Karnataka to Hyderabad issued under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 that the reason for such detention is 'wrong destination'. Under the Act, this is not a ground to detain the vehicle carrying the goods or levy tax or penalty. 18. Though it is stated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and penalty cannot be imposed on petitioner. 22. We therefore hold that there was no warrant to detain the vehicle along with goods, demand payment of Rs. 4,16,447/- as tax and penalty under the CGST and SGST Act, 2017. 23. Since petitioner could not contest it owing to the wedding ceremony in his family at that point of time in order to be able to secure the release of the vehicle carrying the goods at the instance of the driver of the vehicle, such payment has to be presumed as one made due to economic duress and the petitioner cannot be blamed for paying the same without protest, when he had no choice but to pay it. 24. In our considered opinion, there were no good and sufficient reasons for detention by the 1st respondent of th....