DAILY EXPRESS Vs. ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Could the transporter having no tax liability, for the goods transported, face detention, seizure and penalty, as provided under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act"? for brevity)?, is the question that arises for consideration in this appeal over WP(C) No.35665/2018 before us.

(2.) The facts in brief are thus: The petitioner is a transporting firm engaged in plying about 100 lorries as carriers of goods in India. On 15.10.2018, while the petitioner was transporting goods bound to Kollam in vehicle No.KL04/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 Rs.64,128/- with 100% penalty totalling to Rs.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 29.11.2018, the Writ Petition was dismissed holding that the provisions under Section 129(1)(b) applies to the transporter as person interested in the goods and therefore, Exts.P5 to P7 notices of detention do not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference.