2018 Taxo.online 372
WRIT TAX No. – 1300 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018
M/s RAJAVAT STEELS & ANOTHER
STATE OF U.P. & 3 ORS.
Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Ashok Kumar, Justice
In favour of assessee
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Rahul Agarwal
Respondent: – C.S.C.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
This writ petition is filed with prayer to quash the notice dated 18.09.2018 passed by respondent no.3 and further to release the goods and the vehicle.
Prima facie, this Court finds that on totally frivolous grounds the goods in question are seized by the Mobile Squad-9, Kanpur.
The counsel for the petitioners has placed a copy of the circular dated 14.09.2018 being Circular No. 64/34/2018-GST issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing which is one of the highest authority, which clearly indicates in Clause 5 that the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the situation which are mentioned in the said circular.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause 5(f) of the said circular which provides that in the event on error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated.
In the instant case, the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act are initiated while the goods were proceeded from Kanpur and were to be delivered at the purchaser, who situates at Udhamnagar, Uttrakhand and immediately after proceeding from the business place of the petitioner, the respondent no.4, Mobile Squad Authority has detained the truck and goods at Kalyanpur and initiated the seizure proceeding and has passed the seizure order.
The ground for seizing the goods is that in the invoice, E-way bill and weigh slip the Truck number was mentioned being U.P.-78-DN 7983 instead of U.P.-78-DN 7938. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said mistake was due to inadvertent human error by the person who has prepared the documents including E-way bill, as the vehicle no. is mentioned by him what he has noticed in the tax invoice and further that he has mentioned the same in all other papers/documents subsequent to issuance of invoice.
Surprisingly, neither the mobile squad authority nor the appellate authority appreciated the claim of the petitioner that it is due to mistake or human error the vehicle number (particularly last two digits) are mentioned different which in the instant case are 83 in place of 38.
This Court is unhappy with the conduct of the authorities and it is nothing but a clear cut case of harassment of the petitioner/dealer.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the goods and vehicle are directed to be released forthwith and since the petitioner is a registered dealer, therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court directs the petitioner to furnish the indemnity bond to the extent of the amount of penalty asked/demanded.
The writ petition is allowed.