Petitioner Shall be Deemed to Be Owner of Goods If Tax Invoice & E-way Bill Were Belonging to it | HC

Case Details: Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. - [2023] 157 taxmann.com 231 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Siddhartha Varma & Shekhar B. Saraf, JJ.
  • Aditya Pandey, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Ankur Agarwal, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner received an order for supply of goods and the goods were loaded on the vehicle and sent along with invoice and E-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted and during physical verification it was found that there was no discrepancy in relation to the consignment and the goods were as per the invoice and E-way bill. However, goods were detained on the ground that both the consignor and consignee were declared as non-existent.

After detention, the petitioner being the owner of the goods came forward and sought for release of the goods under section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. However, the authorities determined the penalty to be paid as per Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. It filed writ petition against it.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that on the date of interception the petitioner was having a registration under the CGST Act but the said registration was subsequently suspended by the authorities at West Bengal. However, the goods were found with proper tax invoice and E-way bill belonging to petitioner. Therefore, in such a case, Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31-12-2018 would apply and petitioner would be deemed to be owner of goods. Thus, the Court held that the goods would have to be released in terms of section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act, 2017.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 24/99 GST 51/2023 (76) G.S.T.L. 70 (All.) (para 9)
  • Sanjay Sales Agency v. State of U.P. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 298 (All.) (para 9) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Sahil Traders v. State of U.P. [2023] 152 taxmann.com 24/99 GST 51/2023 (76) G.S.T.L. 70 (All.) (para 9)
  • Sanjay Sales Agency v. State of U.P. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 298 (All.) (para 9).