GST Act | If Invoice Or Any Other Specified Document Is Accompanying Goods, Then Consigner Or Consignee Are Deemed To Be Owner: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that if goods are accompanied by invoices or any other document as specified, either the consignee or the consigner shall be deemed owner of the goods. Penalty, if any, should be imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner was transporting a consignment for M/s Tata Steel Ltd. from Odisha to Pilkhua. Due to breakdown of...
The Allahabad High Court held that if goods are accompanied by invoices or any other document as specified, either the consignee or the consigner shall be deemed owner of the goods. Penalty, if any, should be imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner was transporting a consignment for M/s Tata Steel Ltd. from Odisha to Pilkhua. Due to breakdown of engine in the State of Jharkhand, there was delay in transporting goods. As a result, E-Way Bills expired. Petitioner was able to extend one of the E-Way Bills, however, GST portal did not allow any extension in the rest. The goods were detained in Kanpur on ground that E-Way bills had expired.
Counsel for Petitioner contended that penalty, if any, could not be imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act since the owner of the goods had come forward before the Authorities. Further, reliance was placed on Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to argue that penalty could only be imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act as the invoice and E-way Bills were accompanying the goods, the consigner or the consignee should have been considered as deemed owner of the goods.
Though an objection was raised by the State on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act, it was not disputed that the goods were accompanied by requisite documents.
Noting the arguments of the parties and the applicability of the circular, bench comprising of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi held
“In view of the fact that the department does not dispute the petitioner's assertion that the goods in transit were carrying necessary documents in the form of E-Way bill and invoice etc, we are of the view that the department ought to have considered the petitioner's prayer for release of goods and vehicle upon compliance of the provisions contained U/s 129 (1) (a) of the Act.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Western Carrier India Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [Writ Tax No. - 1020 of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 347
Counsel for Petitioner: Rahul AgarwalCounsel for Respondent: Ankur Agarwal, Gopal Verma