TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is directed against the order dated 7th May, 2025 in W.P.A. 9544 of 2025. The appellants had filed the writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 3rd October, 2024 by which penalty has been imposed on the appellants/writ petitioners under Section 129 (1) (b) of the Act. 2. The learned Single Bench declined to interfere with the order and rendered certain findings on the merits of the matter but, however, since there was an appellate remedy provided under the Act, relegated the appellants/petitioners to avail such remedy. Aggrieved by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terprises and it appears that Mr. Siddhartha Ghosh, the proprietor of M/s. Ghosh Enterprises had stated that he does not run any business under any GSTIN number and the registration certificate has not been obtained by him and the registration certificate has been fraudulently obtained by misusing his identity proof. Based on these allegations, which remained uncorroborated, the authority viz. the Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that the tax invoice furnished by the appellants/writ petitioners is fake as well as the way bill generated using the details in the tax invoice cannot be considered to be proper supporting document and hence, stands rejected and the case is liable to be disposed of in accordance with Section 129(1)(b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rough the show-cause notice, we find that the authority accepted the stand taken by Mr. Ghosh as "Gospel Truth" without conducting any verification and without putting the appellants/writ petitioners on notice about the stand taken by M/s. Ghosh Enterprises and straightway proceeded to hold that the transport of the goods was without valid documents. It is rather surprising as to how the Department accepted the stand taken by Mr. Siddhartha Ghosh without any verification on the date when the goods were detained, on the date when spot inspection was made by the authority in the premises of the M/s. Ghosh Enterprises and more particularly, when the GSTIN of the M/s. Ghosh Enterprises was active as of August 1, 2024. 8. Assuming a case wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act deals with inspection of goods in movement. Sub-section (1) of section 68 states that the Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) states that the details of documents required to be carried under sub-section (1) shall be validated in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (3) states, where any conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) is intercepted by the proper officer at any place, he may require the person in charge of the said conveyance to produce the documents prescribed under the said sub-section and devices for verification, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevance. The Circular has clarified certain issues in Serial No.6 of the Circular. The issue was "who will be considered as the owner of the goods for the purposes of Section 129(1) of the CGST Act?" It was clarified that if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanying the consignment of goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed to be the owner. In the instant case, the invoice and the stipulated documents clearly show that the goods were sent to the proprietorship firm of the appellants/writ petitioners and for all legal purposes, the appellants/writ petitioners is deemed to be the owner of the goods. 15. It may be a different case if the department had caused a verification of the stand taken by....