Bharat Vijay Transport Co. VS State of Gujarat

this lorry receipt is of some other person. The authorities have detained the goods and passed an order of demand of tax and penalty.

3. The issue is that the conveyance was carrying goods with 31 bills and lorry receipts, but the tax and penalty issue arises from nine defective bills and lorry receipts. For seven of these, the concerned taxpayers have paid the tax and penalty and the goods have been released. However, for the remaining two lorry receipts (No. 155609 and 155616), issued to M/s Standard Sales Corporation, the owner has not appeared to claim the goods. The GSTN mentioned on these receipts does not match the actual owner’s details.

4. The authorities have detained the goods related to these two lorry receipts and issued a demand for tax and penalty. The primary contention is about the mismatch of the GSTN on the lorry receipts and the owner’s nonappearance to claim the goods, leading to the imposition of tax and penalty by the authorities.

5. Mr. Varis Isani, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Soaham Joshi, representing the respondents, have presented their arguments before the court. The court must decide on the validity of the detention and the demand for tax and penalty based on the presented facts and legal provisions.

1. The court heard from Mr. Varis Isani, the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Soaham Joshi, the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The case involves the apprehension of a conveyance carrying goods under 31 bills and lorry receipts. Of these, goods related to 22 bills and lorry receipts were released immediately. For nine defective bills and lorry receipts, seven taxpayers paid the tax and penalty, leading to the release of the goods. However, for two lorry receipts issued to M/s Standard Sales Corporation, the owner did not claim the goods. An inquiry revealed that the GSTN on the e-way bill was obtained using documents belonging to Mahendrabhai Venilal Solanki, who allowed Vipulbhai to use them for GST registration in exchange for money. Despite Mahendrabhai’s statement being recorded in January 2019, no criminal proceedings or police complaints were filed against him, nor were any actions taken under section 122(xxii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. The goods were transported under a valid invoice and e-way bill with a GSTN, which was issued without proper inquiry as required by the Act and rules, due to a default by the authorities. Instead of identifying and penalizing the real offender, the respondents chose to penalize the transporter, who likely did not suspect any wrongdoing since the transporter had been presented with a valid invoice and e-way bill. The authorities sought to recover the tax, penalty, and fine from the transporter.

5. Upon reviewing the confiscation order under section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the relevant State and Integrated GST provisions, it is clear that the authority did not thoroughly consider the petitioner’s objections and made a superficial decision.

The case involves a legal dispute over the seizure and confiscation of goods being transported by the petitioner. Mr. Varis Isani, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Soaham Joshi, the Assistant Government Pleader, represented the respondents.

1. The incident began when the conveyance in question was apprehended carrying goods under 31 bills and lorry receipts. Out of these, goods under 22 bills and lorry receipts were immediately released. For nine defective bills and lorry receipts, seven taxpayers paid the required tax and penalty, leading to the release of those goods. However, goods under two lorry receipts issued to M/s Standard Sales Corporation remained unclaimed. An inquiry revealed that the GST registration used for these transactions was obtained using the documents of one Mahendrabhai Venilal Solanki, who had permitted another individual, Vipulbhai, to use his documents in exchange for payment. Despite Mahendrabhai’s statement being recorded in January 2019, no criminal proceedings or police complaints have been initiated against him, nor have steps been taken under section 122(xxii) of the Central and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Acts.

2. The goods were being transported under a valid GST invoice and e-way bill. The issue arose because the GST registration was granted without proper inquiry by the authorities. Instead of identifying and penalizing the real culprit, the authorities penalized the transporter, who had no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the documents provided for the transport of goods.

3. Upon reviewing the confiscation order under section 130 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it was found that the concerned authority had not adequately considered the petitioner’s objections and had hastily passed the order to confiscate the petitioner’s conveyance.

4. Given these circumstances, the petitioner presented a strong prima facie case for interim relief. Consequently, a Rule was issued, returnable on 19th June 2019. As interim relief, the respondents were directed to release the petitioner’s truck (No. GJ-01-BY-5326) immediately. This was conditional upon a responsible partner from the petitioner firm filing an undertaking within two days, committing to fulfill any liabilities under the CGST/GGST Act if the petitioner fails in the case, without affecting their right to challenge such an order in the appropriate forum.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: