The Allahabad High Court ruled that the petitioner must be regarded as the owner of the goods whether he is the consignor or the consignee.
Facts
The Petition has been filed by the Petitioners with the allegations that the Petitioner no.1 placed an order for supply of mixed ready-made garments, which were being transported by Petitioner no.2. It was stated that on 13.09.2022 the goods while in transit were intercepted and a physical verification report was prepared on 17.09.2022 in form GST MOV-04 and no discrepancy was found in the quantity of the goods in question.
Submission
Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the event Part – B of the E-Way Bill was not being carried, no penalty is imposable.
He further argued that in any event, the detaining authority does not have the jurisdiction to value the goods as has been done.
He submitted that even for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that the Petitioner is liable, the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act can be attracted in this case and not Section 129(1)(b) of the Act as admittedly the Petitioner is the owner of the goods in terms of the invoice issued in favour of the petitioner.
Decision
The single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the value of the goods in transit is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 declared in an invoice or a bill of supply or a delivery challan in respect of the consignment.
The court held that in view of Explanation 2, Rule 138 read with Section 15(1), the transaction value is the value which is indicated in the invoice.
It was further held by the court that the orders impugned insofar as it imposes the burden on the petitioner to get the goods released in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act is bad in law.
The court set aside the impugned orders dated 26.09.2022 and 19.10.2022 and directed the respondents to release the goods to the petitioners if the petitioners offer to pay two hundred percent of the tax payable on the goods valuing the same on the basis of the valuation as shown in the invoice.
Case title: S/S S.K. Trading Co And Anr. v/s Additional Commissioner and Anr.
Citation: Writ Tax No. – 1464 Of 2022
