Vinay Granites vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax 1

Held

The Court held that the matter was at the show cause notice stage, and the 1st petitioner had the opportunity to present their explanation and objections before the 1st respondent to establish their case. The Court directed the release of the detained commodity (Polished Black Granite) to the 1st petitioner upon deposit of the tax amount of Rs.73,944/- and 25% of the fine amount mentioned in the impugned notice. The 1st petitioner was also directed to attend before the 1st respondent, submit their explanation, and participate in the enquiry. Regarding the 2nd petitioner, the owner of the vehicle, the Court found no material produced to establish ownership and therefore did not consider their request at that stage, granting liberty to file a fresh writ petition with relevant documents. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, a dealer and the owner of a transporting vehicle, challenged a notice issued in Form GST MOV-10 by the 1st respondent (an authority under the GST Act). The notice alleged discrepancies between the goods described in the invoice (Black Galaxy Granite) and the goods in transit (Black Granite/Polished Granite), and that the goods were dispatched from a different taxpayer without proper documents. The petitioner argued that they sold Polished Black Granite, as indicated in the transit pass, and had paid the due tax, refuting the authority's apprehension of a mismatch. The Court noted that the matter was at the show cause notice stage and the petitioner could present their case before the authority. For the vehicle owner (2nd petitioner), no ownership documents were produced, so their request was not considered at that stage, with liberty to file a fresh petition with supporting documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the goods in transit, described as Black Granite/Polished Granite in the transit permit and other documents, are different from the goods purchased, described as Black Galaxy Granite in the purchase order, thereby constituting a violation under the GST Act? 2. Whether the detention of the goods is justified given that the petitioner claims to have sold Polished Black Granite and paid the applicable tax, and the matter is still at the show cause notice stage? 3. Whether the owner of the transporting vehicle is entitled to relief at this stage without producing proof of ownership? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the goods in transit were indeed Polished Black Granite, as clearly mentioned in the transit pass, and the due tax had been paid. They argued that the 1st respondent's apprehension of a mismatch between purchased and transported goods was baseless. They also sought the release of the detained commodity. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, issued the notice in Form GST MOV-10 based on the alleged discrepancies in the description of goods and dispatch without proper documentation.