Anchor Health VS Additional Commissioner And Another

The summary encapsulates a legal case where a writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first appellate authority. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in soap manufacturing in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, is registered under the CGST Act. The dispute revolves around the transportation of goods from Kutch, Gujarat, to Haridwar, Uttarakhand, during the assessment year 2017-2018. The goods, transported via truck as raw materials, were intercepted on 03.03.2018 in Muzaffarnagar. The detaining authority issued a notice, to which the petitioner responded, and the goods were subsequently released in compliance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Act.

However, the first appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 10.12.2021. Sri Aditya Pandey, the petitioner’s counsel, argues that there was no requirement for TDS/e-way bills during the transit of goods, as per the GST Council’s regulations. The petitioner contends that the imposition of penalties or seizure of goods was unjustified. Sri Rishi Kumar, the Standing Counsel for the State, is likely to counter these arguments. The case seems to hinge on the interpretation and application of relevant GST laws and regulations concerning the transportation of goods, particularly regarding the necessity of TDS/e-way bills during transit.

The proceedings involved a writ petition challenging an order issued by the first appellate authority dated 10th December 2021, in appeal No. GST-0037/2020 under Sections 129(3) of the UPGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, operates a soap manufacturing business in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, and is also registered under the CGST Act. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2017-2018, concerning the transportation of goods from Kutch, Gujarat to Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The goods, transported as raw materials via a truck, were intercepted on 3rd March 2018 at Muzaffarnagar.

The detaining authority issued a notice, which the petitioner responded to, and subsequently, the goods were released in compliance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. However, the first appellate authority later dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that at the time of transit, the necessity of having a TDS/e-way bill was not mandatory, as the GST Council had exempted it until 31st March 2018. He further contended that the petitioner’s use of bags for transporting raw materials multiple times was explained to the authorities and the first appellate authority. However, the appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds that the bags had two batch numbers, which the petitioner argued was not indicative of any wrongdoing.

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel, opposing the writ petition, referred to paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, suggesting that the presence of two batch numbers on the bags used for transportation implied undeclared goods contrary to the invoice.

In response, Sri Pandey reiterated that the batch numbers discrepancy arose from the reuse of bags and did not signify any concealment by the petitioner.

After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the evidence, the court found that the requirement of an e-way bill/TDS was no longer a matter of contention, citing previous judgments such as M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018) and M/S H.B.L. Power Systems Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others (2022 (7) TR 6136), where it was established that the need for an e-way bill until 31st March 2018 was waived based on GST Council instructions.

Consequently, the court considered the petitioner’s argument regarding the batch numbers discrepancy and concluded that it did not indicate any wrongdoing on the petitioner’s part. Therefore, the order passed by the first appellate authority was set aside.

The case involved a writ petition challenging an order passed by the first appellate authority dated 10th December 2021 in appeal No. GST-0037/2020 under Section 129 (3) of the UPGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. The petitioner, a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, operates a soap manufacturing business in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, registered under the CGST Act. The dispute arose during the assessment year 2017-2018 when goods being transported from Kutch, Gujarat to Haridwar, Uttarakhand, were intercepted on 3rd March 2018 at Muzaffarnagar. The detaining authority issued a notice, which the petitioner responded to, and the goods were subsequently released in compliance with the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. However, the first appellate authority later dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that at the time of transit, there was no requirement for a TDS/e-way bill, as the GST Council had exempted it until 31st March 2018. Additionally, the petitioner’s company reused bags for transporting raw materials multiple times, providing explanations to the authorities and the first appellate authority. However, the appeal was dismissed based solely on the presence of two batch numbers on the bags.

The State’s Standing Counsel contended that the presence of two batch numbers on the bags suggested undeclared goods contrary to the invoice.

In response, the petitioner’s counsel reiterated that the bags had different batch numbers due to their multiple uses, emphasizing that there was no intention to conceal any information.

After considering arguments from both parties and examining the record, the court found that the requirement of an e-way bill/TDS until 31st March 2018 had been dispensed with, as established in previous court cases. Regarding the presence of two batch numbers on the bags, the court accepted the petitioner’s explanation that the bags were reused for transporting raw materials multiple times, thus rejecting the first appellate authority’s finding.

Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 10th December 2021 passed by the first appellate authority in appeal No. GST-0037/2020. It also directed the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner before the first appellate authority within fifteen days from the date of production of a certified copy of the court’s order.

Download PDF:
Anchor Health

For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court

Read Another Case Law:                                      
GST Case law