Is Selling Dealer Compelled to Disclose the Specific Route to be Taken for Transportation of Goods?—Akhilesh Kumar Sah

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers GST--Detention of Goods Is Selling Dealer Compelled to Disclose the Specific Route to be Taken for Transportation of Goods? Akhilesh Kumar Sah Sometimes the route of the vehicle carrying the goods not remain direct i.e. some other or wrong route is undertaken by the driver which remains the longer route or in mis-direction in comparison to the simple route. It may happen due to many reasons but the proper officer stops the vehicle seizes the goods as the vehicle do not remain in the easier or straight direction where the goods are to be delivered. In this article, the issue has been taken that there is no specific provision in the GST Act prescribing the route for the seller through he should send the goods to the purchaser. 1. Introduction Section 129(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "GST Act") provides as follows: "The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)." Recently, in Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner (Writ Tax No. 277 of 2022) decided by the Allahabad high Court on 3-10-2023, a writ petition was entertained by the Allahabad High Court in view of the fact that GST Tribunal not being functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14-9-2023. 2. Facts of the case As per facts of the case, the petitioner, assailed the order passed being a registered dealer engaged in trading of bidi, match box, tobacco, etc, under the provisions of section 129 (3) of UP GST Act, 2017, The assessee in the normal course of business, received order for supply of bidi and match box from a dealer one (Satish Chand Shelendra Kumar), Karahal Road, Mainpuri and another (Pawani Provisions Store), G.T. Road Chhibramau, Kannauj. He prepared two tax invoices as well as two e-way bills. The said goods were loaded for transportation from Bewar Mainpuri to Karahal Mainpuri and Chhibramau, Kannauj. During onward journey, when the goods were in transit, the same were intercepted and on production of documents i.e. tax invoice and e-way bills, Form GST MOV-1 was prepared, thereafter on the statement of the driver of the vehicle, the seizure/detention order in Form GST MOV-06 was passed. Thereafter, Form GST MOV-07 was passed. Being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, GST MOV-09 was passed under section 129 (3) of UP GST Act. The assessee immediately deposited the amount under protest as demanded by the Officer and challenged the order-in-appeal but the same was dismissed confirming the said demand. He then filed writ petition before the High Court. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers

GST--Detention of Goods

Is Selling Dealer Compelled to Disclose the Specific Route to be Taken for Transportation of Goods?

Akhilesh Kumar Sah

Sometimes the route of the vehicle carrying the goods not remain direct i.e. some other or wrong route is undertaken by the driver which remains the longer route or in mis-direction in comparison to the simple route. It may happen due to many reasons but the proper officer stops the vehicle seizes the goods as the vehicle do not remain in the easier or straight direction where the goods are to be delivered. In this article, the issue has been taken that there is no specific provision in the GST Act prescribing the route for the seller through he should send the goods to the purchaser.

1. Introduction

Section 129(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "GST Act") provides as follows:

"The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)."

Recently, in Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner (Writ Tax No. 277 of 2022) decided by the Allahabad high Court on 3-10-2023, a writ petition was entertained by the Allahabad High Court in view of the fact that GST Tribunal not being functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14-9-2023.

2. Facts of the case

As per facts of the case, the petitioner, assailed the order passed being a registered dealer engaged in trading of bidi, match box, tobacco, etc, under the provisions of section 129 (3) of UP GST Act, 2017, The assessee in the normal course of business, received order for supply of bidi and match box from a dealer one (Satish Chand Shelendra Kumar), Karahal Road, Mainpuri and another (Pawani Provisions Store), G.T. Road Chhibramau, Kannauj. He prepared two tax invoices as well as two e-way bills. The said goods were loaded for transportation from Bewar Mainpuri to Karahal Mainpuri and Chhibramau, Kannauj. During onward journey, when the goods were in transit, the same were intercepted and on production of documents i.e. tax invoice and e-way bills, Form GST MOV-1 was prepared, thereafter on the statement of the driver of the vehicle, the seizure/detention order in Form GST MOV-06 was passed. Thereafter, Form GST MOV-07 was passed. Being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, GST MOV-09 was passed under section 129 (3) of UP GST Act. The assessee immediately deposited the amount under protest as demanded by the Officer and challenged the order-in-appeal but the same was dismissed confirming the said demand. He then filed writ petition before the High Court.