Detention of Goods & Levy of Penalty Not Justified on the Basis of Statement of Truck Driver Where Valid Documents Available

Case Details: Khan Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner - [2023] 154 taxmann.com 149 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Piyush Agrawal, J.
  • Aditya Pandey for the Petitioner.
  • Rishi Kumar for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The goods of petitioner were intercepted when truck was coming from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, U.P. The goods were detained on ground that the driver gave subsequent statement that goods were to be unloaded at Ghaziabad and not at Robertsganj. The petitioner filed writ petition and contended that no such fact was mentioned by detaining/seizing authority in detention order in Form GST MOV-6 and also submitted that no discrepancy was found by seizing authority in accompanying goods with regard to quantity, quality or item disclosed.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the goods were accompanying tax invoice and e-way bill was valid on date of detention/ interception and in fact, validity of e-way bill with regard to earlier transaction was valid and submitted before detention authority.

Moreover, the subsequent statement of truck driver alleging to unload goods at Ghaziabad instead of Robertsganj could not be recorded by any stretch of imagination and not permissible in eye of law without any cogent material on record, which showed that perverse action had been taken against petitioner. Therefore, the Court held that the action for seizure/detention and demand of levy of penalty to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978] 1 SCC 405 (para 29)
  • Riya Traders v. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. 28 of 2023, dated 17-1-2023] (para 28)
  • Margo Brush India v. State of U.P. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 515 (All.)/[2023] 8 Centax 216 (All.) (para 28) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. 503 of 2020, dated 18-1-2021] (para 7)
  • Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978] 1 SCC 405 (para 7)
  • Riya Traders v. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. 28 of 2023, dated 17-1-2023] (para 8)
  • Margo Brush India v. State of U.P. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 515 (All.)/[2023] 8 Centax 216 (All.) (para 8)
  • Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. State of U.P. [2022] 140 taxmann.com 383/2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 385/[2022] 93 GST 470 (All.) (para 9)
  • S.K. Trading Co. v. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeals) [2023] 150 taxmann.com 102 (All.) (para 9)
  • F.S. Enterprise v. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No. 7061 of 2019, dated 11-9-2019] (para 9)
  • Sleevco Traders v. Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeals) [2022] 138 taxmann.com 424/92 GST 300 (All.) (para 19)
  • Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeals) Fifth Commercial Tax v. Sleevco Traders [2023] 152 taxmann.com 418/2023 (75) G.S.T.L. 257/[2023] 78 GST 781 (SC) (para 19)