DAILY EXPRESS Versus THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 2019 (3) TMI 596 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention – seizure – penalty – applicability of 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – liability of transporter – Held that:- Section 129(1) makes it adequately clear that any person who is interested in the goods shall be liable under Section 129(1)(b). Particularly, a reading of Section 129(6) would indicate that where a person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods, fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-Section (1) within 14 days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130. This would undoubtedly indicate action not only against the good
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
bout 100 lorries as carriers of goods in India. On 15.10.2018, while the petitioner was transporting goods bound to Kollam in vehicle No.KL- 04/V-9334 with a consignment by VIP Industries to be delivered to M/s.VTWO Ventures, Kollam, the vehicle was intercepted by the first respondent, Assistant Sales Tax Officer (ASTO). The driver had all documents in tact and in order, with the exception that, Part-B of the e-way bill was not complete. The vehicle was detained for the reason that it was not valid for movement under Section 138 of the CGST Act. The goods which were being carried, was invoiced as per Ext.P5 and there was admittedly no tax liability. Ext.P6 notice was issued under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The goods were ordered to be detained. Tax of ₹ 64,128/- with 100% penalty totalling to ₹ 1,28,256/- was imposed vide Ext.P7 notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV-07. 3. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition. Vide the impugned judgment dated 29
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e. According to her, non-filling of part-B of e-way bill is only a minor breach as stated in Section 126. More over, in view of the fact that there is no tax evasion, tax and penalty could not have been demanded, because there is no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts as required under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The learned counsel also takes us to Section 122 (xiv) of the CGST Act to argue for the proposition that even if there is a breach by the transporter, transporting any taxable goods without the cover of documents as may be specified in this behalf, at best, penalty to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- alone could be imposed. Even if general penalty is to be imposed under Section 125 of the CGST Act, it could only be to the extent of ₹ 25,000/- and nothing more. Hence, the learned counsel argues that imposition of tax and penalty to the tune of ₹ 1,28,256/- is atrocious and needs to be interfered with. Smt.Sujini would further draw our attention to Circular No.76
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
lude a transporter as well. 7. We cannot accept the argument of the appellant for the reason that Section 129(1) makes it adequately clear that any person who is interested in the goods shall be liable under Section 129(1)(b). Particularly, a reading of Section 129(6) would indicate that where a person transporting any goods or the owner of the goods, fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-Section (1) within 14 days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of Section 130. This would undoubtedly indicate action not only against the goods, but also against the transporter. 8. The non-obstante clause in Section 129 indicate that neither Section 126, nor the general provision of penalty under Section 125, or Section 122 would apply in cases where Section 129 is attracted. Section 126 refers to 'minor breaches'. Explanation(a) to section 126 states that a breach shall be considered a 'minor brea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =