Meena Agency Limited vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court did not delve into the primary contention regarding the applicability of Section 129 versus Section 130 of the CGST Act, stating it was not necessary given the view the Court was inclined to take. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid the amount of tax and penalty immediately after the vehicle was seized. Based on this payment and the petitioner's submission that it is an established agency, the Court directed the immediate release of the truck and the goods contained therein. This release is made subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the second respondent on a specified date for a hearing, after which the second respondent is to pass a reasoned order as envisaged under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The Court made the rule absolute.

Facts

The petitioner, Meena Agency Limited, a manufacturer of Calcined Bauxite, was supplying goods to Calderys India Refractories Limited. The petitioner generated a tax invoice and transport receipt for the supply. While transporting three consignments for different buyers, the petitioner inadvertently failed to generate an e-way bill for one invoice. The goods were intercepted and detained by the second respondent (an authority under the GST Act) on the grounds of non-tender of an e-way bill. Consequently, the second respondent issued a notice for confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The petitioner, however, paid the tax and penalty immediately after the seizure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents ought to have first resorted to the provisions of Section 129 of the CGST Act before initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act for confiscation of goods, given that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the respondents should have initially invoked Section 129 of the CGST Act, which deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit. They argued that since the tax and penalty were paid promptly, the goods and conveyance should be released, and the respondents should not apprehend non-recovery of any differential amount as the petitioner is an established company. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue regarding the applicability of Section 129 versus Section 130. However, the Assistant Government Pleader did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner.