ITC | Einvoice login | CBIC | GST portal | tax rea ltime

Share:-

Facts –

The Petitioner, M/S Sahib Furniture, was transporting the goods from Ludhiana to Kolkata and the truck carrying the goods was intercepted and show cause notice was issued. It was contended that the authorities were not empowered to take action stating that the goods be transported from Ludhiana to Kalkota was liable for tax under the IGST or CGST.
Placing reliance on the provisions of Section 68 of the UPGST Act, a view was formed that powers of seizure was exceeded, more so, when the E-way Bill in the form of TDS-01 was expected to be downloaded, which was not available and was duly accepted by the driver and thus, the authorities had the power to take action under Section 129 (1) of the UPGST Act.

Issue –

Whether the authorities had the power to take action under Section 129 (1) of the UPGST Act in case of goods transported from Ludhiana to Kolkata?

Order –

The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the judgment in the case of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.587 of 2018), and M/s H.B.L. Power Systems Limited vs State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.33211 of 2018) are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case also, as the detention is fully based upon the foundation that the TDS-01 form was not accompanied along with the goods which were in transit.
The reference to the powers under Section 68, only a power vests with the respondent authorities to inspect the goods in movement, however, the facts remain that the entire foundation for passing the order was not carrying the TDS-01 form, which issued was duly considered and decided by this Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and in the case of H.B.L. Power Systems Limited, as such, the orders impugned cannot be sustained and are quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to return the amount deposited by the petitioner.

Post Category