Case Title | ARHAAN FERROUS SOLUTIONS LTD. vs ASST. COMMR. |
Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA |
Citation | 2023 (08) GSTPanacea 223 HC Andhra Pradesh Writ Petition Nos.15481, 15482, 15486 and 15487 of 2023 |
Judgment Date | 03-August-2023 |
The petitioners, in this case, seek a writ of mandamus to declare the actions of the first respondent in detaining their goods and vehicles as illegal. The first petitioner, who owns the goods, and the second petitioner, who owns the vehicle, assert that their goods were detained while in transit with valid invoices. They specifically challenge Form GST MOV -01, dated 12.06.2023, and confiscation notices in Form GST MOV -10, dated 14.06.2023, which propose to confiscate the goods and vehicles.
The petitioners’ argument can be summarized as follows:
- The first petitioner is a trader in iron scrap with a valid registered GST number. They purchased the iron scrap from the fourth respondent under an invoice dated 12.06.2023 and subsequently sold it to M/s Radha Smelters Private Limited in Telangana under another valid invoice.
- The first petitioner engaged the vehicles of the second petitioner to transport the goods.
The petitioners contend that their goods were being transported with proper documentation and invoices, yet they were still detained by the first respondent. They argue that such actions are unlawful and seek relief through a writ of mandamus to set aside the detention and confiscation notices.
In essence, the petitioners assert their rights as legitimate owners of the goods and vehicles and request the court to intervene and declare the actions of the first respondent as illegal, while also seeking any other appropriate relief deemed fit by the court.
The case pertains to a consignment sent from Vijayawada to Sankarampet, accompanied by valid documents such as an invoice, way bill, weighment slip, etc. However, during transit, the first respondent detained the vehicles and the goods on 12.06.2023. This action was purportedly taken because the vendor of the first petitioner (the fourth respondent) allegedly lacked a business presence in Vijayawada. The first respondent issued proceedings against the fourth respondent, disregarding the documents presented by the drivers during inspection.
The petitioners argue that the fourth respondent, who sold the scrap, holds no interest in the matter. They contend that if the fourth respondent defaults, the first respondent may take action against them. However, the petitioners assert that the first respondent cannot inconvenience them under the guise of initiating proceedings against the fourth respondent, as long as all relevant and applicable documents cover the transaction.
Furthermore, the petitioners claim that the first respondent failed to adhere to the prescribed procedure outlined in the APGST/CGST Act, 2017. They allege that the first respondent directly proposed to confiscate the goods in transit without issuing the necessary notices, such as GST MOV-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, or GST MOV-09.
The case revolves around a consignment transported from Vijayawada to Sankarampet, accompanied by proper documentation including an invoice, way bill, weighment slip, among others. However, the transit was interrupted when the first respondent detained the vehicles and the goods on 12.06.2023. This action was taken because the vendor of the first petitioner (the fourth respondent) was allegedly lacking a business presence in Vijayawada. Despite the drivers presenting valid documents during inspection, the first respondent proceeded with detention.
The petitioners argue that the fourth respondent, who sold the scrap, has no direct involvement in the matter. They assert that any default on the part of the fourth respondent should not inconvenience them, as the first respondent’s actions should be directed towards the responsible party. They emphasize that as long as all relevant documents covering the transaction are in order, the first respondent should not disrupt their business under the pretext of pursuing action against the fourth respondent.
Additionally, the petitioners claim that the first respondent did not follow the prescribed procedure outlined in the APGST/CGST Act, 2017. They allege that the first respondent directly proposed confiscation of the goods in transit without issuing necessary notices such as GST MOV-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, or GST MOV-09 as required by law. This indicates a procedural lapse on the part of the first respondent.
In summary, the petitioners are contesting the detention of their consignment by the first respondent, arguing that it was unjustified and lacked proper procedural adherence. They emphasize that their business should not be unduly disrupted due to alleged shortcomings of a third party involved in the transaction. The case underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring accountability in transit-related actions.
GST Case Law