Hero Ecotech Ltd.VS The Asst. Sales Tax Officer

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the amount specified in Ext.P2 notice was deposited by the petitioner to release the detained vehicle and consignments. A counter affidavit filed by the respondent provides additional details regarding the detention of the vehicle.

This writ petition challenges Ext.P2 notice issued by the respondent under Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and sale of bicycles, transported a consignment of bicycles in a lorry under three invoices. However, the consignment was intercepted and detained based on suspicion of collusion between the consignor and consignee to evade taxes due to a time delay between the invoices and transportation.

The petitioner deposited the directed amount in Ext.P2 notice to release the detained vehicle and consignments. In response, the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the vehicle was detained because the supplier issued the invoices 21 days and 7 days prior to the removal of goods, contravening provisions of the CGST Act.

The petitioner denied the contentions regarding the delay in removal of goods, asserting that the interstate sale of bicycles was conducted properly. In court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 31 of the CGST Act allows invoices to be issued either at the time of removal of goods or prior to delivery, aligning with the statute and negating suspicions of tax evasion.

Despite the compelling argument, the court decided not to draw a conclusion at this stage, considering that an adjudication is pending. Instead, the court directed that the adjudication proceedings be completed promptly. This decision ensures a fair resolution while allowing for further examination of the matter before reaching a final verdict.

This writ petition challenges a notice (Ext.P2) issued by the respondent under Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and selling bicycles, transported a consignment under three invoices in a lorry. However, the consignment was intercepted and detained due to a time delay between the invoices and transportation, raising suspicions of collusion to evade taxes.

The petitioner deposited the directed amount in Ext.P2 to release the detained vehicle and consignments. In response, the respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the vehicle was detained because the supplier issued invoices 21 and 7 days prior to the goods’ removal, contravening the CGST Act. The petitioner denies the allegations of delay in goods removal, asserting that the interstate sale of bicycles was conducted correctly.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel cited Section 31 of the CGST Act, 2017, noting that invoices could be issued either at the time of goods’ removal or prior to delivery, in line with the statute. However, despite this argument, considering that adjudication is pending, the court refrains from reaching a conclusion at this stage. Instead, the court directs the respondent to expedite the adjudication proceedings.

This writ petition contests a notice (Ext.P2) issued by the respondent under Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner, involved in the production and sale of bicycles, transported a consignment using three invoices in a lorry. However, the consignment was halted and detained due to a time discrepancy between the issuance of invoices and the transportation, sparking concerns of collusion to evade taxes.

The petitioner complied with Ext.P2’s directives by depositing the specified amount to secure the release of the detained vehicle and consignments. In response, the respondent submitted a counter affidavit, asserting that the vehicle’s detention stemmed from the supplier’s issuance of invoices 21 and 7 days before the goods’ removal, which violated the CGST Act. The petitioner refutes these allegations, maintaining that the interstate sale of bicycles adhered to legal requirements.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel referenced Section 31 of the CGST Act, 2017, highlighting that invoices could be issued either upon goods’ removal or before delivery, aligning with statutory provisions. Nevertheless, despite the compelling argument presented by the petitioner’s counsel, the court refrains from reaching a verdict at this stage, given the ongoing adjudication process. Instead, the court directs the respondent to expedite the adjudication proceedings, deferring a conclusive decision for the time being.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: