Akshay Kamal Mittal vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim over the seized goods was doubtful. The primary reason for this doubt was the petitioner's failure to produce an e-way bill for the transaction with Shree Shyam Corporation, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 138 of the GST Rules for the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000/-. The Court found the tax invoice, even if produced, insufficient without the accompanying e-way bill. Furthermore, the Court noted that the notification produced by the petitioner, pertaining to intra-state movement in Madhya Pradesh, was irrelevant as the transaction in question involved inter-state movement from Indore (Madhya Pradesh) to Dhule (Maharashtra). Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the lower courts. The criminal writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Akshay Kamal Mittal, is challenging a common order dated 03-08-2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which dismissed his revision petitions. These petitions arose from a Magistrate's order that allowed the return of seized goods to respondent No. 2 and rejected the petitioner's application for the same. The goods, cotton bales, were allegedly dispatched from Aurangabad to Madhya Pradesh but did not reach the consignee. During investigation, it was found that the goods were sold to the petitioner, who then sold them to M/s G. M. Cotton Fibers, where they were eventually seized. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the goods from Shree Shyam Corporation, Indore, and provided tax invoices as proof, showing dispatch from Indore to Dhule.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tax invoices produced by the petitioner, showing purchase from Shree Shyam Corporation and dispatch from Indore to Dhule, are sufficient to establish his claim over the seized goods, given the absence of an e-way bill for this transaction? (Question of law and fact, concerning the evidentiary value of documents and compliance with GST regulations). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that he purchased the goods from Shree Shyam Corporation and provided tax invoices as proof. He also produced a notification from the Government of Madhya Pradesh regarding intra-state movement. Respondent No. 2's argument: Respondent No. 2 argued that the tax invoice is a manufactured document and cannot be relied upon. They emphasized that as per Rule 138 of the GST Rules, an e-way bill is mandatory for the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000/-, and the petitioner failed to produce one for the transaction with Shree Shyam Corporation. The respondent also pointed out that the transaction involved inter-state movement (Indore to Dhule), making the Madhya Pradesh intra-state notification irrelevant.