Goods Can’t Be Confiscated for Non-existence of Supplier Without Giving Purchaser Opportunity to Establish Bonafide Purchase | SC

Case Details: Deputy Assistant Commissioner-1 (ST) v. Arhaan Ferrous and Non Ferrous Solutions (P.) Ltd. - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 649 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Mrs B.V. Nagarathna & Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
  • Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Tushar Giri & Siddharth Anil Khanna, Advs. for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the department detained the goods of the petitioner on the ground that the consignor was not available at the given address. The petitioner filed writ petition against the detention of goods and the Honorable High Court directed provisional release of goods but gave liberty to the department to initiate independent action against petitioner under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017.

The department filed SLP against the order of High Court and contended that the goods were liable to be confiscated as the consignor was not available at the given address.

Supreme Court Held

The Honorable Supreme Court noted that the GST department could not have confiscated goods belonging to petitioner on account of absence of consignor at given address without giving petitioner an opportunity to establish bona fide purchase, as goods were duly covered under E-Way Bill and invoice. Therefore, it was held that the Apex Court was not inclined to interfere in matter and the SLP was dismissed.