Case tittle | Shree Info System Solutions Pvt. Ltd VS The Assistant Commissioner (ST)Adjudication, Intelligence |
court | Madras high court |
Honourable judge | Justice M.Sundar |
Citation | 2022 (12) GSTPanacea 585 HC Madras W.P.No.34474 Of 2022&W.M.P.Nos.3392 And 33924 Of 2022 |
Judgment date | 22-December-2022 |
The court convened to address the main writ petition and associated Writ Miscellaneous Petitions (WMPs). Mr. Adithya Reddy, representing the writ petitioner, and Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, representing the lone respondent, were present. Given the focused nature of the matter, both counsels agreed to proceed with the main writ petition alone, forgoing the need for a counter affidavit.
The brief context provided stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act). The petitioner was engaged in the supply of web cameras and was transporting them between branch offices.
The court proceedings revolve around a writ petition and several related miscellaneous petitions. Mr. Adithya Reddy represents the petitioner, while Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik appears as the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), representing the lone respondent. Both parties have consented to expedite the main writ petition due to its narrow scope, thus rendering a counter affidavit unnecessary.
The crux of the matter is as follows: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act), was transporting web cameras from one branch office in Chennai to another in New Delhi. However, the transportation vehicle was intercepted and detained by the respondent at 08:35 pm on December 13, 2022, citing the lack of an E-way bill for the consignment’s movement. Subsequently, an order (referred to as the “impugned order”) was issued on December 16, 2022, under Section 129(3) of the TN-G&ST Act, which the petitioner disputes as erroneous.
The critical issue at hand revolves around a timing discrepancy. While the interception and detention occurred at 08:35 pm on December 13, 2022, the impugned order incorrectly states it as 08:35 am on the same date. This factual error is deemed fatal to the impugned order, as it forms the sole basis for the detention. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order on these grounds.
Given the narrow scope of the case, a detailed discussion of the factual background is deemed unnecessary by the court. The timing discrepancy stands out as a clear error that undermines the validity of the impugned order. Hence, the court is inclined to rule in favor of the petitioner based on this crucial oversight.
The court has addressed the main writ petition along with related writ miscellaneous petitions. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Adithya Reddy, and the lone respondent, represented by Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, appeared before the court. With the consent of both parties, the main writ petition was heard without the necessity of a counter affidavit due to the narrow focus of the case.
In brief, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TN-G&ST Act), was transporting web cameras from one branch office in Chennai to another in New Delhi. The goods were intercepted and detained by the respondent under Section 129 of the TN-G&ST Act for lack of an E-way bill. A subsequent order, dated 16.12.2022, referred to as the impugned order, was issued under Section 129(3) of the TN-G&ST Act, which the petitioner contests as erroneous.
The crux of the matter lies in a critical discrepancy: while the interception occurred at 08:35 pm on 13.12.2022, the impugned order erroneously states it as 08:35 am on the same date. This error is pivotal, as the sole basis for the detention was the absence of an E-way bill, which was, in fact, generated at 12:39 pm on 13.12.2022, as acknowledged by the petitioner.
Paragraph 8 of the impugned order confirms the timing discrepancy and forms the basis for the court’s decision. As such, the court deems it necessary to set aside the impugned order and revert the matter to the initial detention/seizure order under Section 129(1) of the TN-G&ST Act. The respondent is directed to conduct a fresh Section 129(3) procedure, providing the petitioner with a new opportunity to present their case.
In conclusion, the court has intervened due to a fundamental error in the impugned order and has ordered a fresh legal process to be conducted by the respondent, affording the petitioner a fair chance to be heard.
The court, with the consent of both parties’ counsels, deliberated on a writ petition concerning the detention and seizure of goods under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered dealer, had their goods intercepted while being transported from one branch office to another. The detention was made on the grounds of a missing E-way bill, despite one having been generated later. The court found a crucial error in the timing mentioned in the impugned order, which rendered it invalid.
Consequently, the court annulled the impugned order, reverting the matter back to the original detention/seizure order under Section 129(1) of the TN-G&ST Act. The respondent was directed to conduct a fresh legal process under Section 129(3) while providing the petitioner with a new opportunity to present their case.
The petitioner agreed to furnish a bank guarantee for the penalty amount specified under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. They committed to providing the guarantee by a specified date, upon which the respondent was obliged to release the detained goods and conveyance.
In summary, the court nullified the impugned order due to a procedural error, instructed a fresh legal process, and mandated the release of the detained goods upon the petitioner’s provision of a bank guarantee.
Download
PDF:
For
Reference Visit:
Read
Another Case Law:
GST Case
law: