M/S. Phaneendra Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer And 2 Others

Held

The Court noted that an interim order was granted on March 15, 2021, and that the order passed by the authorities had been acted upon. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further remained to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. The Court disposed of the writ petition without passing any specific order on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 129 and Section 126 of the CGST Act or the constitutional validity of the demand. The ratio decidendi is that if an interim order has been acted upon and no further adjudication is required, the writ petition can be disposed of on that basis.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Phaneendra Traders, filed a writ petition challenging the detention of its goods and vehicle on February 25, 2021. The goods were in transit from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra and were accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill generated on the GST portal. The petitioner contended that the detention by the Deputy State Tax Officer was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, especially considering the minor omissions/mistakes in documentation. The petitioner sought a declaration that Section 129 of the CGST Act was inapplicable to such minor errors and that the demand for tax and penalty was contrary to Section 126 of the CGST Act and Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for the release of the detained goods and vehicle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 of the CGST Act is permissible for minor omissions or mistakes in documentation, despite the presence of a valid tax invoice and e-way bill. 2. Whether the action of the respondent in demanding and collecting tax and penalty for such minor discrepancies is arbitrary and contrary to Section 126 of the CGST Act and the constitutional provisions. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the detention was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that Section 129 of the CGST Act should not apply to minor omissions/mistakes in documentation. The demand for tax and penalty was argued to be contrary to Section 126 of the CGST Act, as well as Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution. The petitioner relied on the fact that the conveyance was accompanied by a tax invoice and an e-way bill generated on the GST portal. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.