Sandip Kumar Singhal VS Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Bureau of Investigation North Bengal Headquarter

The petitioner is contesting a decision made by both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. These decisions affirmed that the petitioner had violated Section 67(2) in conjunction with Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as “the Act”). The incident in question occurred on February 22, 2022, at 2 p.m., when the petitioner’s goods were seized from a godown under the authority of Section 67(2) of the Act. The seizure was executed through an order issued in Form GST INS-02 on the same day. This order stated that upon inspection of the goods under Section 67(1) of the Act, coupled with scrutiny of the relevant accounting records and documents, there were grounds to believe that the goods were subject to confiscation. Consequently, they were seized under the power vested in Section 67(2) of the Act. A report confirming the belief that the goods were liable for confiscation was prepared later that day at 4:30 p.m. Furthermore, it was noted that the e-way bill associated with the goods had expired on the date of inspection and seizure.

The petitioner is challenging a decision made by both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority regarding the seizure and subsequent penalty imposed on their goods under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The goods belonging to the petitioner were seized on February 22, 2022, from a godown under Section 67(2) of the Act. This action was taken after an inspection revealed reasons to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated. The e-way bill for the goods had expired on the date of inspection and seizure. It was generated on February 9, 2022, for transporting cumin seeds from Gujarat to Siliguri, West Bengal, with validity until February 20, 2022. The seizure occurred three kilometers ahead of the final destination point mentioned in the e-way bill.

A notice under Section 129 of the Act was issued to the transporter and the person in charge of the goods, requiring them to show cause why tax and penalty should not be imposed for contravening Section 129. Despite a hearing on February 25 and 26, 2022, the authorized representative failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the expired e-way bills.

The adjudicating authority concluded that the goods were transported and stored in contravention of Section 129, imposing a penalty accordingly. The petitioner, accepting the authority’s jurisdiction, was unable to convince them otherwise, leading to the confirmation of the penalty and subsequent release of the goods upon payment.

Discontented with this decision, the petitioner appealed to the appellate authority, which upheld the adjudicating authority’s ruling. The appellate authority noted that the Registered Transporter Principal (RTP) status could have prevented the proceeding had the transporter’s godown been registered as an additional godown in the registration certificate.

In summary, the petitioner contests the penalties imposed for allegedly transporting and storing goods in violation of relevant sections of the Act. Both the adjudicating and appellate authorities found the petitioner at fault, leading to the enforcement of penalties.

The case revolves around the petitioner’s objection to an adjudicating order and an appellate authority’s decision, both of which uphold the petitioner’s alleged violation of Sections 67(2) and 129 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as “the Act”). The petitioner’s goods were seized on February 22, 2022, under Section 67(2) from a godown, based on reasons including expired e-way bills and suspicion of tax liability. Subsequently, a notice under Section 129 of the Act was issued, and hearings were conducted, leading to the imposition of penalties. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority upheld the penalties, citing violations of Sections 68 and 129.

The petitioner challenges these decisions on several grounds. Firstly, they argue that the initial seizure was under Section 67(2), while the penalties were imposed under Section 129, which they deem legally impermissible. They assert that Section 67 pertains to goods stored in a static position, whereas Section 129 applies to goods in transit, highlighting an inconsistency in invoking these sections. Additionally, the petitioner claims a violation of natural justice, as they were not given a hearing before the penalty was imposed. They further argue that their constitutional right to trade (under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution) was infringed due to the seizure.

The petitioner contests the conclusive findings regarding their intent to evade taxes or the goods’ liability for tax payment. They argue that the penalty was imposed for what the appellate authority deemed a trivial lapse rather than intentional evasion.

In summary, the petitioner seeks redress based on procedural irregularities, inconsistencies in legal interpretation, and alleged infringement of constitutional rights, while contesting the conclusions drawn regarding their tax liability and intent.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Delhi High Court

Read Another Case Law:                                      
GST Case law