2019 (3) TMI 267 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – Validity of FORM GSTMOV-06 dated 04.02.2019 – Held that:- The detention/seizure is provided for only in cases where the Department is prima facie convinced that there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The order of detention has to reflect the reasons for which the seizure of the conveyance/goods has been effected.
–
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that none of the relevant fields have been ticked and almost all fields have been left blank. It is thus entirely unclear as to what statutory provision or Rule the petitioner has contravened. A pointed query put in this regard to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents also elicits no details and he is also unable to enlighten the Court on what the contraventions might be – Admittedly, in the sworn statement recorded from the lorry driver, a mistake had crept in, in the mentioning of the lorry n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
er Roving Squad-5 Enforcement(North) on various grounds. 2. Ms.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate took notice on behalf of the respondents on 12.02.2019 and sought time to take instructions. 3. Heard Mr. K.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. By consent of learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission, finally. 4. The admitted facts are that the petitioner had carried goods of Schaeffler India Ltd, from its warehouse at Chettipedu, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu to Sriperumbudur. According to the petitioner, the goods were accompanied by all required documents, such as tax invoices , E-Way bills and delivery Challan. The value of the goods was ₹ 8,63,595/-. 5. While this was so, the vehicle was intercepted by the officials of the Commercial Taxes, Department who proceeded to cause inspection of the same. A statement had been r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
verification of the documents tendered, the undersigned is of the opinion that the inspection of the goods under movement is required to be done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 68 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with State/UT goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or under section 20 of the integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 201 for the following reasons. The Owner/driver/person-in-charge of the conveyance has not tendered any documents for the goods in movement. Prima Facie the documents tendered are found to be defective The genuineness of the goods in transit (its quantity etc) and/or tendered documents requires further verification E-Way bill not tendered for the goods in movement Others (Specify) Hence you are hereby directed,- (1). To station the conveyance carrying goods at_______(place) at your own risk and responsibility, (2) to allow and assist in physical verification and inspection of the goods in movement and related docume
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to be defective. The genuineness of the goods in transit (its quantity etc) and/or tendered documents requires further verification E-Way bill not tendered for the goods in movement Others (Specify) For the above said reasons, an order for physical verification/inspection of the conveyance, goods and documents was issued in Form GST Mov-02 dated 04.02.2019 and served on the owner/driver/person in charge of the conveyance. A physical verification and inspection of goods in movement was conducted on __________ by ________ (name and designation) in the presence of the owner/driver/person in charge of the goods in (name and designation) in the presence of the owner/driver/person in charge of the conveyance Shri___________ and a report was drawn in FORM GST MOV-04. The follwing discrepancies were noticed. In view of the above discrepancies, the goods and conveyance are required to be detained for further proceedings. Hence, the goods and above conveyance are detained by the undersigned and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ovisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,- (a) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty; (b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per cent. of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twentyfive thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unable to enlighten the Court on what the contraventions might be. 11. Admittedly, in the sworn statement recorded from the lorry driver, a mistake had crept in, in the mentioning of the lorry number as TN 19 U 7857 instead of TN 19 U 7873. One assumes this to be a reason for the detention. However, detention of the conveyance and goods is an extreme step that seriously prejudices an assessee and it is incumbent upon the statutory authority/the Proper Officer arrayed as respondent No.2, to have made mention of the contravention in the field provided in the impugned order for such purpose. This has not been done. 12. Though Section 107 of the Act provides for appeals or revisions that may be filed by any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an adjudicating authority, I am not inclined, in the circumstances of the present case, to relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedy provided. Any appeal that the petitioner might file would have to assume the cont
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =