Asianet Digital Network (P.) Ltd VS Assistant State Tax Officer Thiruvananthapuram

The petitioner in this case is a cable TV and Internet service provider that operates by purchasing and distributing Set Top Boxes (STBs) as part of its business. The issue at hand arose when the petitioner was transporting a consignment of these Set Top Boxes. On 14th November 2018, while the goods were in transit, they were intercepted and detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO). This action was based on a suspicion of discrepancies in the documentation related to the transportation of the goods. After detaining the consignment, the ASTO issued a notice, referred to as Ext.P5, and also communicated the reasons for the detention through another document, Ext.P6. The notice and communication highlighted a discrepancy between the delivery challan, which is a document used in the transportation of goods, and the e-way bill, a mandatory document for the movement of goods under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The specific discrepancy pointed out by the ASTO was a significant mismatch in the declared value of the goods. The e-way bill, which was meant to accompany the goods during transportation, listed the value of the Set Top Boxes as Rs. 10,04,888/-. However, the delivery challan that accompanied the goods showed a much lower value, specifically Rs. 3,20,000/-. This discrepancy raised concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of the transportation documents, prompting the ASTO to detain the goods. In response to the notice and the communication from the ASTO, the petitioner provided an explanation through a document referred to as Ext.P7. In this explanation, the petitioner likely attempted to clarify or justify the discrepancy between the e-way bill and the delivery challan. Following this explanation, the ASTO issued an order, referred to as Ext.P8, which appears to have maintained the position of the authorities, leading to the continued detention of the goods. Dissatisfied with the order and the detention of its goods, the petitioner decided to challenge the ASTO’s actions by filing a writ petition before the court. A writ petition is a legal document filed in higher courts seeking relief against actions or decisions of government authorities that are perceived as unjust or illegal. The main issue in this case revolves around the legitimacy of the detention based on the discrepancy between the delivery challan and the e-way bill. The petitioner, through its legal counsel, is likely arguing that the discrepancy does not warrant such a severe action as the detention of goods, or that there might have been an innocent mistake or a justifiable reason for the difference in the values stated in the two documents. The petitioner’s defence will be crucial in determining whether the ASTO’s actions were justified under the law, or whether the petitioner is entitled to have its goods released and any penalties or consequences imposed by the authorities set aside. This case underscores the importance of accurate documentation in the transportation of goods under the GST regime, as discrepancies can lead to significant legal and financial consequences, including the detention of goods and possible penalties. The court’s decision will likely hinge on whether the discrepancy was due to a genuine mistake or oversight, or whether it indicates a more serious issue of non-compliance with the tax laws. The petitioner, a company providing cable TV and Internet services, purchased a number of Set Top Boxes for its business operations. While transporting these goods, the conveyance was intercepted by the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO) on November 14, 2018, resulting in the detention of the goods. The ASTO issued a notice (Ext.P5) and a communication (Ext.P6) outlining the discrepancies that justified the detention. In response, the petitioner provided an explanation (Ext.P7) and subsequently received an order (Ext.P8) from the authorities. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner has approached the court through this writ petition. The central issue in this case revolves around the discrepancy identified by the ASTO between the value of the goods as recorded in the delivery challan and the e-way bill. The e-way bill indicated that the value of the goods was Rs. 10,04,888/-, while the delivery challan reflected a value of Rs. 3,20,000/-. The petitioner acknowledges the detention of the goods but disputes the basis for it. The petitioner’s defense is that the e-way bill correctly represented the value of the goods being transported. However, the delivery challan displayed two separate lots of Set Top Boxes: the first lot consisted of 200 boxes valued at Rs. 3,20,000/-, while the second lot, which contained 600 boxes, was erroneously shown with a value of zero due to a computer error. The petitioner argues that this discrepancy in the delivery challan was unintentional and was the result of a technical error, not an attempt to suppress information or evade taxes. The petitioner’s counsel further contends that the transportation of the Set Top Boxes was an internal transfer of goods between different business locations of the petitioner, and therefore, it was not liable to pay any tax on this transaction. Based on this reasoning, the petitioner asserts that the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act, which pertains to the detention, seizure, and release of goods, do not apply in this case. In contrast, the Government Pleader, representing the state, argues that the petitioner’s defense regarding the alleged discrepancy should be presented before the State Tax Officer, who is the appropriate authority to adjudicate on such matters. The Government Pleader further contends that if the petitioner seeks the interim release of the detained goods, it must comply with the conditions laid out in Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act, which may involve payment of a penalty or furnishing a security. The court is now tasked with determining whether the petitioner’s explanation for the discrepancy in the delivery challan is valid and whether the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act are applicable in this scenario. The resolution of this matter will hinge on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the GST Act and the evidence presented by both parties regarding the alleged computer error and the nature of the transaction. The petitioner, a cable TV and internet services provider, encountered a legal issue while transporting a consignment of set-top boxes. The goods were intercepted and detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO) on November 14, 2018. The ASTO issued notices (Ext.P5 and Ext.P6) highlighting a discrepancy between the delivery challan and the e-way bill. The e-way bill recorded the value of the goods as ₹10,04,888, while the delivery challan indicated a much lower value of ₹3,20,000. The petitioner responded with an explanation (Ext.P7) and was subsequently issued an order (Ext.P8), which led to the filing of this writ petition. The central issue revolves around the mismatch in the documentation. The ASTO justified the detention based on the discrepancy between the e-way bill and the delivery challan. Specifically, the e-way bill reflected the correct total value of the goods, but the delivery challan divided the consignment into two lots: 200 set-top boxes valued at ₹3,20,000 and 600 set-top boxes valued at zero, which the petitioner attributed to a computer error. The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the correct value was reflected in the e-way bill and the total quantity was mentioned in the delivery challan, there was no intent to suppress the value of the goods. Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the transfer of goods was between different business locations of the petitioner for internal use, and therefore no tax was payable. Consequently, they argued that Section 129 of the GST Act, which pertains to detention and seizure of goods, was not applicable. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader maintained that the petitioner’s defense should be presented to the State Tax Officer. Furthermore, if the petitioner sought interim release of the detained goods, they were required to comply with Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act. The court, considering the circumstances, held that the Department’s demand for compliance with Section 129(1)(a) could not be faulted. However, the court also found that the Department’s insistence on imposing both tax and penalty on all the set-top boxes was excessive. Specifically, the court noted that the value of 200 set-top boxes was already reflected in the delivery challan, and only the remaining 600 set-top boxes were unaccounted for. Therefore, the court directed that the petitioner could secure the release of the goods by providing a bank guarantee and personal bond under Section 129(1)(a), but only for the amount corresponding to the 600 set-top boxes. With these observations, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing for further adjudication before the State Tax Officer.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law