VENKATESHVARA LOGISTICS FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a transporter registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as 'CGST Act') and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as 'IGST Act') was engaged by M/s. Venkataramana Traders, a registered supplier in Karnataka (henceforth referred to as the "Supplier") to transport 300 bags of arecanut to a recipient registered dealer in Delhi, M/s. Gulli Enterprises (henceforth referred to as the "Subject recipient"). The consignment was loaded in a truck bearing registration No.HR-55-AF-7882 and when the goods was in transit, the officials of the respondent intercepted the vehicle at Sagar, Shimoga District. On enquiry, the driver of the vehicle furnished the E-way bill and invoice which related to a different consignment of 220 bags of areca by the supplier to the same subject recipient registered at Delhi by a lorry bearing registration No.MH-09-C-4289. Thus, the authorities concerned issued an order dated 07.03.2019 in Form GST MOV-02 (Annexure-B) and seized the truck and the goods by an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 (Annexure-B1) dated 07.03.2019. A notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act in Form GST MOV No.7 (Annexure- B2) dated 07.03.2019 was issued requiring the payment of tax of Rs.2,12,100/- and penalty of Rs.2,12,100/-. The petitioner claimed that the e-way bill and the invoice relating to the transport by another vehicle bearing registration number MH-09-C-4289 was handed over to the driver by mistake and that the correct e-way bill along with the invoice showing the payment of the Central Tax by the lorry bearing no. No.HR-55-AF-7882 was furnished before the Tax officials at Shimogga, which was not accepted. Thus, a payment challan and a mandate form for a sum of Rs.4,24,200-00 towards inter-State tax of Rs.2,12,100/- and penalty of Rs.2,12,100/- was generated and paid on 08.03.2019. Since the vehicle was seized and parked in the Sagar APMC yard, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee collected the cess and penalty payable under the Act from the supplier on 07.03.2019. Upon the payment of tax and penalty, the vehicle and the goods were released on 08.03.2019 as per Form GST MOV-05 (Annexure-B6). Thereafter, an intimation in GST Form DRC-03 was furnished intimating the payment of a sum of Rs.4,24,200-00 on 10.03.2019. The petitioner contended that with the payment of the tax and penalty as stated above, all the proceedings in respect of the notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act stood concluded as provided under Section 129(5) of the CGST Act.

(2.) However, on 10.03.2019 the vehicle bearing No.HR-55-AF-7882 and the goods were again seized at Bijapur and the statement of the driver was recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. An order for physical verification in Form GST MOV-02 (Annexure-C1) was issued on 10.03.2019 purportedly on the ground that "prima facie the documents tendered were found to be defective". The lorry and the goods were stationed at Bijapur. This was followed by a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act addressed to the driver of the lorry and the authorized representative of the petitioner. Later, on 12.03.2019, the statement of the driver and the authorized representative was recorded.

(3.) The petitioner, in terms of its letter dated 13.04.2019 requested the Commissioner of Central Tax and by letter dated 15.04.2019 requested the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax to release the vehicle and the goods since the tax and the penalty was paid pursuant to the notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act which concluded the proceedings. Since the respondent did not release the goods and the lorry, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the second order of detention as without the authority of law.