Order Date – 11 December 2023

Parties: H/s Halder Enterprises Vs State of U.P. and Another

Facts –

• The Petitioner, H/s Halder Enterprises, transported Dried Arecanuts with invoice and E-way bill. The same were intercepted on on October 3, 2023 and it was found that there was no discrepancy in relation to the consignment and the goods were as per the invoice and E[1]way bill.
• However, on October 11, 2023 the goods were detained on the ground that both the consignor and consignee were declared as non-existent. The petitioner sought for release of the goods under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. However, the authorities have determined the penalty to be paid as per Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.

Issue –

• Whether the goods may be released by the authorities under Section 129(1)(a) or 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. and another, 2023:/AHC:116953-DB (Coram: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. and Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.), wherein it has been categorically held that Circular dated December 31, 2018 is applicable and when the tax invoice and the E-way bill are produced by the assessee, the goods shall be treated as belonging to the assessee, who comes before the authorities as the owner of the goods and produces the above documents.
• Thus, it is patently clear that in the present case, goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to the petitioner. Hence, Circular dated December 31, 2018 would apply and the petitioner would be deemed to be the owner of the goods. Ergo, the goods would have to be released in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
• The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. The writ petition is allowed.