R. G. Group vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the TSGST Act were inchoate and underway. The fact that the E-Way bill had expired on 07.07.2024 and the vehicle was intercepted on 09.07.2024 with a mismatch in vehicle numbers was not disputed. The Court noted that the petitioner had been intimated a new date for personal hearing on 30.07.2024. Therefore, the Court was not required to interfere at this stage. The Court directed the authorized officer to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law, providing an opportunity for physical hearing to the petitioner and/or the driver within the stipulated time. It was also observed that if the petitioner furnished security as required under Section 129 of the TSGST Act, 2017, the respondent No.6 should consider and release the consignment upon being satisfied with the security. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Facts

The petitioner, R.G. Group, a transporter operating under a franchisee agreement, used vehicle TR-01-AH-1562 for delivering goods from its warehouse in West Tripura to Udaipur, Gomati Tripura. The E-Way bill for these goods expired on 07.07.2024 at 11:59 PM. Due to a power disruption, the petitioner could not timely update the E-Way bills. On 09.07.2024, the vehicle was intercepted by the Inspector of State Taxes. Proceedings under Section 129 of the TSGST Act were initiated, with notices GST MOV-01, MOV-02, MOV-04, MOV-06, and MOV-07 being issued. The petitioner requested the uploading of EWB 03 Part A & B on the portal as per a circular, but no decision was taken on the show cause notice (GST MOV-07) or the petitioner's reply. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the proceedings and release of the vehicle and goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the TSGST Act, 2017, are vitiated by technical violations, specifically the failure of the detaining authority to upload relevant GST MOV notices on the portal for the petitioner-transporter to respond, as per Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018? 2. Whether the adjudication order on GST MOV-07 has been passed within the stipulated seven-day period, and if not, whether the proceedings are inchoate? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to comply with the guidelines in Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST by not uploading the GST MOV notices on the portal, hindering their ability to respond. They also contended that no adjudication order was passed within seven days, and the proceedings are suffering from technical violations, leading to the vehicle and consignment remaining in custody. The petitioner sought the release of the vehicle and goods. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue submitted that the proceedings are under adjudication and the court should not interfere. They advised the petitioner to appear on the fixed date for personal hearing and present their case. The revenue also pointed out that the petitioner could seek the release of the consignment pending adjudication by furnishing security equivalent to the amount payable under Section 129(1)(a) or (b).