Kerala High Court
M/S.Podaran Foods India Private ... vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/22TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.17379 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
M/S.PODARAN FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
D.NO. 6/110-8, MELAPALAYAM, CHITAMPALAYM, KASPA,
PALAYAKOTTAI POST, NANTHAKADAIYUR, KANGAYAM (TK),
TIRUPUR (DT), TAMIL NADU - 638 108.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. S.GOPAL.
BY ADVS.SHRI.PRABHAKARAN P.M.
SRI.KARTHIK S. NAIR
SHRI.NAVAZ P.C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER(SQUAD NO.I)
KERALA SGST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM - 691002.
3 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER,
(SQUAD NO.V), KERALA SGST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM - 691002.
4 COMMISSIONER
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, 9TH FLOOR,
TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695002.
BY SMT.DR.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17-12-2020, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO.22072/2020(H) AND
WP(C).NO.22608/2020(A), THE COURT ON 12-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 2 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/22TH POUSHA, 1942
W.P(C).No.22072 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
M/S. UNIVERSAL CABLES LIMITED
REGISTERED SATNA,MADHYA PRADESH,
HAVING BRANCH AT EAST NADAKAVU,
KOZHIKODE,KERALA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.VIJAYA KUMAR.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR
SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR
SMTG.MINI(1748)
SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD
SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM
SRI.AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY(TAXES),
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER,
SQUAD NO.III,O/O.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
(INTELLIGENCE), KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
PALAKKAD-678001.
BY SMT.DR.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17-12-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).17379/2020(V) AND
WP(C).22608/2020(A), THE COURT ON 12-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 3 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/22TH POUSHA, 1942
W.P(C).No.22608 OF 2020(A)
PETITIONER:
M/S. CHAKKIATH BROTHERS
JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
C.J THOMAS
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER
24 X 7 MOBILE SQUAD @ KOYILANDY STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
KOZHIKODE 673 305
2 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TAXES, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
ADDL. R4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [INTELLIGENCE]
MOBILE SQUAD - 2, STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
KOZHIKODE - 673 006.
[ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.1.2021 IN
I.A.NO.2/2020.
BY SMT.DR.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17-12-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).17379/2020(V) AND
WP(C).22072/2020(H), THE COURT ON 12-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 4 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
As these writ petitions raise a common challenge to the
legality of orders of detention passed by the respondents under the GST
Act, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this
common judgment.
2. I have heard Sri.Shrikumar, the learned Senior Counsel,
duly assisted by Sri.Manoj Chandran for the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.22608 of 2020, Sri.A.Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P(C).No.22072 of 2020, Sri.Karthik S. Nair, the
learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.17379 of 2020 and
the learned Govt. Pleader Smt.Dr. Thushara James for the
respondents in all the writ petitions.
3. For the sake of convenience, the general provisions
regarding detention and their scope and ambit are discussed first,
and the application of the legal principles to the facts of the
individual cases discussed thereafter. I have chosen to resort to said
format because I have come across numerous instances of writ
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 5 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
petitions being filed in this court challenging detention orders
passed under the GST Act when the scheme of the Act clearly
indicates that the writ court is not to be ordinarily approached in
detention cases where effective alternate remedies by way of
provisional clearance, and appeal thereafter, are provided against
alleged arbitrary/illegal detention orders. The legal position in this
regard was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. - [2020 (74)
GSTR 281 (SC)] when it observed that writ petitions seeking
directions to release seized goods ought not to be entertained as the
Act provides for a complete mechanism for release and disposal of
seized goods. I also believe that an enunciation of the scope and
ambit of the statutory provision would help clarify the doubts
arising in the minds of proper officers, who are entrusted with the
task of overseeing the transportation of taxable goods with a view to
check the evasion of tax, as regards the procedure to be followed
while going about their assigned duties.
4. The detention of goods and vehicles, while in transit
pursuant to a commercial arrangement between the consignor and
consignee thereof, is often seen as infringing the fundamental freedom
guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19 (1)(g) of our Constitution, to
carry on a trade or business of his choice. It is also seen as a restriction
to one's freedom to engage in trade, commerce and intercourse
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 6 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
throughout the territory of India, a right guaranteed under Article 301 of
the Constitution. The justification of any legal provision that authorises
such detention must, therefore, be through a demonstration of the
reasonableness of the provision, and its necessity in larger public
interest.
5. Tax legislations in our country, especially those dealing with
indirect taxes, have always found the need to have provisions for
detaining goods and vehicles while in transit to ensure that tax that is
legitimately due to the State is not lost through deliberate evasion by
unscrupulous assessees. It is therefore that such provisions have been
incorporated as incidental machinery provisions for levying the tax as
contemplated in the statute concerned. The detection of evasion, and the
consequential recovery of tax due to the State, are seen as acts that sub
serve larger public interest, and hence the restrictions to the exercise of
the constitutional freedoms are seen as reasonable.
6. It follows, as a corollary to the above position, that unless there
is a possibility of tax evasion, a detention of goods and vehicles cannot be
justified, and that an authority vested with the powers of detention under
a taxing statute has to bear in mind that the provisions authorizing
detention have to be strictly construed for what is at stake is a
constitutional right, fundamental or otherwise, of a citizen. There is also
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 7 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
the aspect of fairness in the levy and collection of taxes that must inform
the authorities entrusted with the said task, for fair implementation of
the law has been recognised as an essential attribute of the rule of law in
a republic such as ours.
7. Our nation witnessed a paradigm shift in the matter of levy and
collection of indirect taxes with the introduction of GST, a destination
based consumption tax on the supply of goods and services, through the
Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016. The GST regime that came
into effect from 01.07.2017 provides for concurrent exercise of taxing
powers by the Centre and the States on the same subject and the Centre
and the States are to act in tandem based on the GST Council's
recommendations.
8. Section 129 of the GST Act is contained in Chapter XIX thereof
that deals with offences and penalties and reads as follows:
"129 - Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person
transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such
goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods
and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to
detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,-
(a) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one
hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted
goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 8 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the
goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty;
(b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per
cent. of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and,
in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of
the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where
the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tax and
penalty;
(c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable
under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:
PROVIDED that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or
seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person
transporting the goods.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (6) of section 67 shall, mutatis
mutandis, apply for detention and seizure of goods and conveyances.
(3) The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyances shall
issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and thereafter, pass an
order for payment of tax and penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause
(c).
(4) No tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section
(3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard.
(5) On payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceedings
in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be
concluded.
(6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of the
goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section
(1) within fourteen days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings
shall be initiated in accordance with the provisions of section 130:
PROVIDED that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or
hazardous in nature or are likely to depreciate in value with passage of time,
the said period of fourteen days may be reduced by the proper officer."
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 9 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
A schematic analysis of Section 129 of the Act reveals the following
salient features of the said provision;
1. Section 129, not surprisingly, opens with a non-obstante clause
that conveys the legislative intention that the provisions of the
statute shall not be an impediment to the measure envisaged
thereunder. It is an indication by the legislature that the detention
provision, which appears to run counter to the general
presumption that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the
territory of India will be free, does not unreasonably restrict the
said freedom, but is merely a machinery provision that is intended
to check evasion of tax and which must be read along with the
substantive provisions of the statute that provide for the levy and
collection of tax.
2. The provision itself is attracted whenever there is a
transportation of goods or storage of goods while in transit, in
contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules made
thereunder. This is obviously a reference to those provisions of the
CGST/SGST/IGST Act and Rules that deal with the manner
of transportation of goods or storage of goods while in transit.
Briefly stated the provisions are as under;
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 10 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
i. Section 31 that requires every registered person supplying
taxable goods to issue a tax invoice showing the description,
quantity and value of the goods, the tax charged thereon and
such other particulars as are prescribed in the Rules. The
particulars to be contained in the invoice or the documents
that may be generated in lieu thereof, as well as the manner in
which they have to be issued, are dealt with in Rules 46 to 55A
of the CGST Rules. The invoice has to be issued before or at
the time of removal of goods for supply to the recipient.
ii. Chapter XVI of the CGST Rules that contain Rules 138 to
138E that deals with the form in which an e-way bill is to be
prepared and generated and the particulars to be contained
therein. While Rule 138 obliges every registered person who
causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding
fifty thousand rupees to upload an e-way bill electronically on
the common portal, before commencement of such movement,
Rule 138A obliges a person in charge of a conveyance to carry
the invoice/bill of supply/delivery chalan and a copy of the
e-way bill in physical form or the e-way bill number in
electronic form. Rules 138B and 138C deal with the procedure
for verification of documents and conveyances and the
inspection and verification of goods respectively.
3. On a contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules being
detected as above, the goods and conveyance concerned become
liable to detention/seizure, and after such detention/seizure, can be
released only on making the payments stipulated in clauses (a) or
(b) of Section 129 (1) or upon furnishing the security as provided in
clause (c) thereof, as the case may be. What is apparent from the
said provision is that there is no discretion conferred on the
detaining authority to release the goods and conveyance on terms
that are less stringent than what is specified under the aforesaid
clauses of Section 129 (1). Further, although sub-section (2) of
Section 129 makes the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 67
applicable mutatis mutandis for the detention and seizure of goods
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 11 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
and conveyances, a reading of Section 67 (6) with Rule 140 of the
CGST Rules clearly indicates that a provisional release of the goods
and the conveyance can be allowed only upon execution of a bond
for the value of the goods, and on furnishing security in the form of
bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest
and penalty payable. It is apparent, therefore, that a determination
of contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules under
Section 129 (1) automatically attracts the liability to pay (i) the tax
due in respect of the goods, and (ii) a penalty equivalent to 100% of
the tax payable on the goods or (iii) in the case of exempted goods,
the prescribed amount equal to the specified percentage of the
value of the goods, depending on whether or not the owner of the
goods comes forward for payment of the tax and penalty, and that
the detaining authority does not have any discretion to reduce the
quantum of the amount stipulated for payment under the statute.
4. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 129 spell out a requirement
for the proper officer detaining or seizing the goods or conveyance
to issue a notice specifying the tax and penalty payable and
thereafter passing an order for payment of the same after giving
the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. Inasmuch as
there is no discretion available in the proper officer to reduce the
amounts stipulated for payment under the statute, in the event of a
finding of contravention of the statutory provisions that justify the
detention/seizure itself, the procedural requirements under Section
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 12 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
129 (3) and (4) must be seen as providing an opportunity to
the person concerned of showing cause as to why a
detention/seizure of goods is not justified in a particular case. In
other words, notwithstanding that the detained/seized goods may
have been provisionally cleared by the person concerned, on
furnishing of a bond and/or bank guarantee as prescribed, the
person concerned can still question the legality of the detention
before the proper officer. The proper officer, on his part, is obliged
to consider the objections of the person concerned and render a
finding as regards the legality of the seizure/detention in the
order that he is obliged to pass under Section 129 (3).
5. On payment of the amounts referred to in Section 129(1), the
proceedings in respect of the notice in Section 129 (3) shall be
deemed concluded. In other words, if in response to the notice
issued under Section 129 (3), the person concerned pays the
amounts demanded therein without demur, the proceedings under
Section 129 (3) for that person is deemed concluded by the passing
of a formal order under Section 129 (3). On the other hand, when
the notice under Section 129 (3) of the Act is served on a person
who, on being served with an order of detention, has cleared the
goods and conveyance on furnishing a bond and/or bank guarantee,
and thereafter responded to the notice served on him, then the
proceedings under Section 129 (3) of the Act for such person is
deemed concluded only after the adjudication proceedings is
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 13 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
completed by the proper officer as above. For such person, an
appellate remedy lies against the adjudication order of the proper
officer under Section 129 (3). Further, although not expressly
provided for under the statute, I am of the view that to render the
appellate remedy effective, a requirement ought to be read into the
statutory framework that the proper officer should not invoke the
bank guarantee for a period of three months from the date of
service of the adjudication order under Section 129 (3). The said
requirement would safeguard the interests of the person
concerned, as also the revenue that holds the bank guarantee,
while simultaneously obviating the need for persons concerned to
approach the writ court challenging the detention orders.
6. Section 129 (6) provides for a situation where a person
transporting any goods or the owner of the goods fails to pay the
amount of tax and penalty stipulated in Section 129 (1) within a
period of fourteen days of the detention or seizure of the goods. In
such cases, proceedings under Section 130 of the Act are to be
initiated against the person concerned for the purposes of
realizing the amounts due to the Government through a sale of the
seized/detained goods by following the procedure prescribed under
the said provision.
9. It is rather surprising that although the statute provides for a
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 14 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
detention of goods and conveyance while in transit, the procedure to be
followed by the proper officer concerned is not spelt out in any Rule
framed under the parent Act. The central government has, however,
chosen to prescribe the procedure for interception of conveyances for
inspection of goods in movement, detention, release and confiscation of
goods and conveyances through various Circulars issued in exercise of
its powers under Section 168 (1) of the CGST Act. A reading of the
various circulars issued from time to time reveals the following
procedure to be currently in vogue and followed by the proper officers.
● On apprehending a vehicle and finding it to be transporting
goods without the required documents, the statement of the person in
charge of the conveyance, who fails to produce a valid document
covering the transportation is recorded in Form GST MOV-1.
● An order for physical verification/inspection of conveyance, goods
and documents is then passed in Form GST MOV-2. The proper officer
has to prepare a report in Part A of Form GST EWB-03, within 24 hours
of issuance of the order in Form GST MOV-2, and upload the same on
the common portal. The proper officer has, thereafter, within a period
of 3 working days from the date of issue of order in Form GST MOV-2,
to conclude the inspection proceedings. If the above time needs to be
extended, the proper officer has to obtain written permission in Form
GST MOV-3 from the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him,
and a copy of the said order has to be served on the person in charge
of the conveyance.
● On completion of the physical verification/inspection, the proper
officer has to prepare a report in Form GST MOV-4 and serve a copy
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 15 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
of the report on the person in charge of the conveyance. The proper
officer has also to record, on the common portal, the final report of the
inspection in Part B of Form GST EWB-03, within 3 days of such
physical verification/inspection.
● Where no discrepancies are found after the inspection of the
goods and conveyance, the proper officer has to issue a release order
in Form GST MOV-5 and allow the conveyance to move further. Where
the proper officer is of the opinion that the goods and conveyance need
to be detained u/s 129 of the CGST Act, he shall issue an order of
detention in Form GST MOV-6 and a notice in Form GST MOV-7,
specifying the tax and penalty payable.
● Where the owner of the goods pays the tax and penalty as
applicable, the goods and conveyance may be released by an order in
Form GST MOV-5 and the order in Form GST MOV-9 shall be
uploaded on the common portal and the demand accruing from the
proceedings shall be added in the electronic liability register and the
payment made shall be credited to such electronic liability register by
debiting the electronic cash ledger or electronic credit ledger of the
person concerned in accordance with Section 49 of the CGST Act.
● Where the owner of the goods or the person in charge of the
conveyance offers to get a release of the goods by furnishing a security
in terms of Section 129 (1)(c) of the CGST Act, the goods and
conveyance shall be released by an order under Form GST MOV-5, after
obtaining a bond in Form GST MOV-8 along with security in the form
of bank guarantee for the amounts demanded. The proceedings under
Section 129 can then be finalised and the security adjusted against the
demand arising from such proceedings.
● Where objections are filed against the proposed amounts of tax
and penalty payable, the proper officer shall consider such objections
and thereafter pass a speaking order in Form GST MOV-9, quantifying
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 16 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
the tax and penalty payable. The order shall be uploaded on the
common portal and the demand accruing from the proceedings shall be
added in the electronic liability register and the payment made shall be
credited to such electronic liability register by debiting the electronic
cash ledger or electronic credit ledger of the person concerned in
accordance with Section 49 of the CGST Act.
● In case the tax and penalty are not paid within 7 days from the
date of issuance of the order of detention in Form GST MOV-6, action
under Section 130 of the CGST Act shall be initiated by serving a notice
in Form GST MOV-10 proposing confiscation of the goods and
conveyance and imposition of penalty. The said notice can also be
issued by the proper officer earlier in point of time, if he is of the
opinion that such movement of goods is being effected to evade
payment of tax. In either event, the order of confiscation in Form GST
MOV-11 can be passed only after affording the person concerned an
opportunity of hearing. The order has thereafter to be served on the
person concerned. On the order being passed, the title of the goods
shall stand transferred to the Central Government. The person
concerned can thereafter get the goods released if payment of tax,
penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation is paid within 3 months. Once an
order of confiscation under Form GST MOV-11 is passed, the order
confirming tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-9 shall be withdrawn.
● If no person comes forward to pay the amounts mentioned in
Form GST MOV-11, the proper officer shall auction the goods
and/or conveyance by public auction and remit the sale proceedings
to the account of the central government.
10. As can be seen from the discussion in earlier paragraphs of this
judgment, the procedure prescribed above substantially conforms to the
requirements of Section 129. The only aspect that probably requires
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 17 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
clarification, in the light of the spate of cases that have been filed before
this court of late, is as regards the scope and ambit of the orders passed by
the proper officer in Form GST MOV-6 and Form GST MOV-9 respectively.
11. It is my view that the procedure to be sequentially followed from
the stage of recording the statement of the driver in Form GST MOV-1 to
the stage of issuing an order in Form GST MOV-6 detaining the goods, is for
the purpose of determining whether the goods were being transported, or
stored during transit, in contravention of the provisions of the Act and
Rules. The proper officer is required to apply his mind to the statement
given by the driver of the vehicle, as also other documents produced by or
on behalf of the owner of the goods or conveyance, to determine whether a
contravention of the statutory provisions has indeed been occasioned. It is
only if he is satisfied of such contravention, based on the material before
him, that he must proceed to pass the order of detention in Form GST MOV-
6. If there is no material to come to such a conclusion, he has to issue a
release order in Form GST MOV-5 and permit an unconditional clearance of
the goods and vehicle. At all the above stages, the proper officer is also
required to strictly adhere to the time limits prescribed in the circulars
issued from time to time so that the goods are not detained for a period
longer than that permitted under the statute.
12. Since the statutory provisions and the circulars envisage the
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 18 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
service of a notice in Form GST MOV-7, simultaneous with the issuance of a
detention order in Form GST MOV-6, the 'non-finality' of the latter order is
statutorily recognised and hence, it will not be open to the person
concerned to prefer any statutory appeal or writ petition against the said
order in Form GST MOV-6. The person served with an order in Form GST
MOV-6, together with a notice in Form GST MOV-7, has the option of either
paying the amounts demanded in the notice and clearing the goods or
contesting the matter by preferring his objections to the proposals
contained in the notice. In the former event, on receipt of the payment from
the person concerned, the proper officer has merely to regularize the
payment by passing an order in Form GST MOV-9 confirming the proposal
in the notice.
13. In the latter event, where the person concerned decides to
contest the matter, the proper officer may permit the said person to
provisionally clear the goods on furnishing a bond and/or bank guarantee as
stipulated under the Act and Rules, and thereafter consider the objections
of the said person, to the notice issued to him in Form GST MOV-7, and pass
an adjudication order in Form GST MOV-9. The order so passed should
reflect a consideration of the objections of the person concerned, and
contain reasons for the decision to detain the goods and collect the tax and
penalty amounts from the person concerned. The proper officer shall bear
in mind the statutory provisions that provide for an appeal against an order
passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act and accordingly, refrain from
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 19 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
invoking the bank guarantee furnished by the person concerned for a period
of three months from the date of service of the order in Form GST MOV-9,
so that the appellate remedy available to the person concerned is not
rendered illusory. (emphasis supplied)
14. In the backdrop of the above discussion regarding the
substantive and procedural scope and ambit of Section 129 of the GST Act, I
now proceed to examine the facts in the individual writ petitions and the
legality of the orders impugned therein.
W.P(C).No.17379 of 2020 and W.P(C).No. 22608 of 2020:
In W.P(C).No.17379 of 2020, the petitioner was transporting
fruit drinks from Tamil Nadu to Kerala, after ensuring that the
transportation of the goods was duly accompanied by valid invoices and
e-way bills that described the goods as 'fruit drinks'. The goods and the
vehicles were, however, detained by the respondents on the ground that the
description of the goods in the invoice was incorrect in that, the goods were
actually classifiable as 'aerated soft drinks with added flavours' attracting a
different HSN classification and rate of tax. Although the petitioner paid
furnished bonds and bank guarantees for the tax and penalty demanded in
the notices issued to it in Form GST MOV-7 (Exts. P1(a), P2(a), P3(a) and
P4(a)) and obtained a provisional release of the goods and conveyance on
14.08.2020, it has chosen to challenge the detention orders in Form GST
MOV-6 (Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4) and the notices in Form GST MOV-7 in this
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 20 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
writ petition. The main contention urged in the writ petition is that an
alleged mis-classification of goods cannot be the basis for a detention under
Section 129 of the GST Act.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission, this court issued
notice before admission to the respondents and restrained them from
invoking the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner pending disposal
of the writ petition. Although the respondents were directed to pass the
adjudication order under Section 129 (3) of the Act in the meanwhile, it is
stated that the said order has not been passed till date.
3. In W.P(C).No.22608 of 2020, the petitioner consignee impugns the
detention order passed by the respondents detaining a consignment of
'Pappad's' that was being transported to the petitioner's premises from the
premises of the manufacturer in Ahmedabad. Although the transportation
was duly covered by a Bill of Supply and an e-way bill, since the goods were
declared as exempted goods under HSN code 1905, the respondents were
of the view that the goods under transport were 'un-fried fryums' (food
items) classifiable under HSN code 21069099 with Sl.No.23 of Schedule III
attracting IGST @ 18%. The mis-classification of the goods was seen as
rendering the transport documents viz. the Bill of Supply and the e-way bill
invalid on account of a mis-description of the goods therein. It was also seen
that the details required in Part B of the e-way bill were not furnished by the
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 21 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
petitioner. The challenge in the writ petition is to the detention order in
Form GST MOV-6 (Ext.P3 (C)) and the notice issued in Form GST MOV-7
(Ext.P3 (D)) on the ground that an alleged mis-classification of goods could
not have been the basis for a detention under Section 129 of the GST Act.
4. When the writ petition came up for admission, this court took note
of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that it had obtained a
release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the
amount demanded by the respondents and directed the respondents to pass
the final adjudication order in Form GST MOV-9 pending disposal of the writ
petition. It was also made clear that the bank guarantee would not be
invoked without further orders from this court. The respondents thereafter
passed the final adjudication order in Form GST MOV-9 confirming the
proposals in the notice issued to the petitioner, both on the ground of
mis-classification of the goods as well as for the reason that incomplete
particulars were furnished in the e-way bill. On receipt of the said order, the
petitioner amended the writ petition to incorporate a challenge against the
said order as well.
5. In both the above writ petitions, the detention of the goods and
vehicle was for the reason that there was an alleged mis-description of the
goods in the transport documents. The issue as to whether a mis-
classification of the goods can be the basis for a detention under Section
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 22 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
129 of the GST Act has been the subject matter of many decisions of this
court as well as other High Courts. In NVK Mohammed Sulthan Rawther
& Sons v. UOI & Ors (Judgment dated 16.10.2018 in W.P(C) No.32324 of
2018), a single Judge of this court relying on an earlier decision of this court
in Rams v. STO - [1993 (91) STC 216], held that a detention of goods at
the check post cannot be resorted to in cases where there is a bona fide
dispute regarding the very existence of a sale and exigibility to tax. It was
observed that in cases where an inspecting authority entertains a suspicion
as regards attempt to evade tax, but the records he seizes truly reflects a
transaction, and the assessee's explanation accords with his past conduct,
then detention cannot be the answer and the inspecting authority can only
alert the assessing authority concerned for examining the issue in
assessment proceedings. The said reasoning also finds acceptance in the
judgment of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Synergy Fertichem Private
Limited v. State of Gujarat - [2019 VIL 623 (Guj)] where the court
opined that in cases of suspected mis-classification, the inspecting authority
can detain the goods only for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers
for effective transmission to the jurisdictional assessing officer.
6. Taking cue from the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that a
mere suspicion of mis-classification of goods cannot be the basis for a
detention under Section 129 of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that
Section 129 forms part of the machinery provisions under the Act to check
evasion of tax and a detention can be justified only if there is a
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 23 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
contravention of the provisions of the Act in relation to transportation of
goods or their storage while in transit. No doubt, it may be open to an
inspecting authority to detain goods if there is a patent mis-description of
the goods in the transportation documents, to such an extent that it can
only be seen as referring to an entirely different commodity. Such instances,
however, must necessarily be confined to glaring mis-descriptions such as
'Apples' being described as 'Oranges' or 'Coconuts' being described as
'Betel Nuts', where the two goods can never be perceived as the same by
ordinary persons endowed with reasonable skills of cognition and
comprehension.
7. In W.P(C) No.17379 of 2020, the mis-classification alleged is not
one that amounts to a mis-description of the kind described above.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the said alleged mis-classification cannot
form the basis of a detention under Section 129 of the GST Act. I
accordingly quash the impugned detention orders and notices in the said
writ petition and allow the same. The respondents shall forthwith, and at
any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, return the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to them.
8. In W.P(C) No.22608 of 2020 also, the mis-classification alleged is
not one that amounts to a mis-description of the kind described above. I
find, however, that the order in Form GST MOV-9 passed by the respondents
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 24 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
confirms the proposals in the notice on the ground not only of alleged mis-
classification but also for the reason that the details required in Part B of
the e-way bill were not furnished. Thus while the detention cannot be
justified on the ground of mis-classification and the impugned detention
order set aside to the said extent, it is sustained to the extent it justifies the
detention on the second ground of the e-way bill not being a valid
document. Since the adjudication order in Form GST MOV-9 has already
been passed, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner therein to his
appellate remedy against the said order (to the extent sustained herein),
making it clear that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not
be invoked for a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment so as to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority in the meanwhile. The appellate authority shall examine the
legality of the detention only on the second ground of the e-way bill not
being a valid document. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner
to raise all contentions in the appeal before the appellate authority and the
sustaining of the detention order, to the limited extent indicated above, shall
not be seen as an endorsement of the findings therein on merits.
W.P(C) No.22072 of 2020:
The petitioner in the writ petition is a Company engaged in the
manufacture and sale of Power Cables and is a registered dealer under the
GST Act. The petitioner had a contract with the Kerala State Electricity
Board for the supply of power cables and towards effecting the said supply,
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 25 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
it imported power cable end termination kits through Chennai Seaport. The
imported items consisting of 33 numbers of end termination kits were
contained in 22 packages, and these were cleared through Customs by filing
the necessary Bills of Entry for home consumption. The packages were then
loaded onto two vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN 42AB 6969 (carrying
10 packages) and KL 49 JI 1855 (carrying 12 packages). The inter-state
transportation of the goods was accompanied by an E-Invoice that was
generated that showed payment of IGST on the consignment, as also an e-
way bill corresponding to the said E-Invoice. Part B of the e-way bill
contained the details of both vehicles with the specific number of units
carries in each. A packing list showing the number of packages also
accompanied the transportation.
2. The goods and the vehicles were detained by the respondents on
the ground that there was only one common invoice (for 22 packages) that
was generated in respect of the two consignments, and when compared
with the number of packages that were contained in each of the vehicles,
there was a shortage of packages in both the vehicles. It was also found that
the petitioner had not complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule
55 (5) of the CGST Rules while transporting goods in semi-knocked down
(SKD) or completely knocked down (CKD) condition or in batches or lots. In
particular it was pointed out that the consignments were not covered by
separate delivery chalans for each vehicle.
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 26 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
3. It would appear that although the petitioner subsequently
produced two separate delivery chalans before the proper officer, the said
chalans did not contain the details required under Rule 55 (1) of the CGST
Rules and hence the proper officer proceeded to issue the detention order
in Form GST MOV-6, and notice in Form GST MOV-7 to the petitioner. In the
writ petition, the petitioner impugned the said detention order and notice
and sought an expeditious release of the goods and the vehicle.
4. When the writ petition came up for admission, this court took note
of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reply had
already been preferred to the notice in Form GST MOV-7 and directed a
listing of the case after three days so that an adjudication order under
Section 129 (3) in Form GST MOV-9 could be passed by the proper officer
after considering the objections of the petitioner. The said order was
subsequently passed confirming the proposals in the notice. This court then
permitted the petitioner to amend the writ petition to incorporate a
challenge against the said order, while also permitting him to clear the
goods and the vehicles on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amounts
demanded in the adjudication order. The respondents were restrained from
invoking the bank guarantee during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. Sri. A Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the respondents erred in detaining the goods and the vehicles for a
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 27 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
mere procedural lapse occasioned by the petitioner. Alternatively, it is
contended that there was a complete misunderstanding of the scope of Rule
55 of the CGST Rules and the provisions of the said Rule did not get
attracted to the transportation in question. As regards the discrepancies
pointed out with regard to the delivery chalans, it is contended that the said
defects had been subsequently cured, and the details required for co-
relating the transport documents with the goods that were being
transported were all available with the proper officer who ought to have
treated the breach as merely venial or technical and refrained from
detaining the goods.
6. On a consideration of the rival contentions, I am of the view that
under Section 129 of the Act, if a proper officer who is entrusted with the
task of detaining goods, finds that they have been transported in
contravention of the rules, he does not have the discretion to condone the
procedural lapse or relax its rigour in particular cases. He must interpret
the Rule strictly keeping in mind the statutory scheme that aims to curb tax
evasion. In as much as the adjudication that is expected of him is a summary
one, he can do no more than determine whether or not on a literal reading
of the statutory provisions, together with the circulars issued from time to
time, there has been a breach occasioned thereof. Any person aggrieved by
the order of the proper officer must necessarily approach the appellate
authority before which an appeal against the adjudication order under
Section 129 (3) of the Act is maintainable. In the instant case too, the
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 28 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
remedy of the petitioner is to approach the appellate authority under the
Act against the finding of the proper officer.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that I do not find any reason
to interfere with the adjudication orders in Form GST MOV-9 impugned in
the writ petition. The petitioner is relegated to his alternate remedy of
preferring appeals against the said adjudication orders before the appellate
authority under the Act. All contentions, legal and factual, are left open to
be agitated by the petitioner before the appellate authority. To enable the
petitioner to do so, I direct that the stay granted by this court, against
invocation of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, shall continue
to remain in force for a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petitions are disposed as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
prp/
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 29 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.17379/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO.
MS1/SCN.43/2020-21 IN FORM GST MOV-06 DATED
08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.MS1/SCN.43/2020-21 IN
FORM GST MOV-07 DATED 08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.MS1/SCN.43/2020-21 DATED 12.08.2020 REJECTING
THE REPLY TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE IN FORM GST
MOV-07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO.
MS1/SCN.44/2020-21 IN FORM GST MOV-06 DATED
08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. MS1/SCN.44/2020-21
IN FORM GST MOV-06 DATED 08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.MS1/SCN.44/2020-21 DATED 12.08.2020 REJECTING
THE REPLY TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE IN FORM GST
MOV-07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO. SCN
49/MB.05/2020-21 IN FORM GST MOV-06 DATED
08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. SCN 49/MB.05/2020-21
IN FORM GST MOV-06 DATED 08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. SCN
49/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 12.08.2020 REJECTING THE
REPLY TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE IN FORM GST MOV-07
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21 IN FORM GST MOV-06 DATED
08.08.2020.
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 30 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21
IN FORM GST MOV -07 DATED 08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 12.08.2020 REJECTING
THE REPLY TO THE AFORESAID NOTICE IN FORM GST
MOV-07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
33AAHCP3183F1ZJ/2017-18 DATED 18.11.2019 FOR THE
FINANCIAL YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE
JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING AUTHORITY(ERODE)
EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
33AAHCP3183F1ZJ/2018-19 DATED 18.11.2019 FOR THE
FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-19 ISSUED BY THE
JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING AUTHORITY(ERODE)
EXHIBIT P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.
33AAHCP3183F1ZJ/2019-20 DATED 18.11.2019 FOR THE
FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-20 ISSUED BY THE
JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING AUTHORITY(ERODE)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM GST MOV-07 DATED
01.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6380 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE COPY OF CORRESPONDING E-WAY BILL NO. 5311
93783114 DATED 06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P7(b) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-01 NO.
MS1/SCN.43/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6380 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P7(c) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-02 NO.
MS1/SCN.43/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6380 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P7(d) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-04 NO.
MS1/SCN.43/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6380 DATED
06.08.2020.
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 31 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.TN/20-21/6382 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P8(a) TRUE COPY OF CORRESPONDING E-WAY BILL NO. 5411
9378 4602 DATED 06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P8(b) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-01 NO.
MS1/SCN.44/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6382 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P8(c) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-02 NO.
MS1/SCN.44/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6382 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P8(d) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-04 NO.
MS1/SCN.44/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6382 DATED
06.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6438 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDING E-WAY BILL NO.
511 94013548 DATED 07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P9(b) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-01 NO.
MS1/SCN.49/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS
COVERED UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6438 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P9(c) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-02 NO.
MS1/SCN.49/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS
COVERED UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6438 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P9(d) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-04 NO.
MS1/SCN.49/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS
COVERED UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6438 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6437 DATED
07.08.2020.
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 32 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
EXHIBIT P10(a) TRUE COPY OF CORRESPONDING E-WAY BILL NO. 5111
94012574 DATED 07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P10(B) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-01 NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6437 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P10(C) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-2 NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6437 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P10(d) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-02 NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6437 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P10(e) TRUE COPY OF FORM GST MOV-04 NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21 DATED 08.08.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF GOODS COVERED
UNDER INVOICE NO. TN/20-21/6437 DATED
07.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2020 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AS REPLY TO FORM GST MOV-07
DATED 08.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2020 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AS REPLY TO NOTICE NO.
MS1/SCN.44/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2020 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AS REPLY TO NOTICE NO.
SCN.49/MB/05/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P11(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2020 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AS REPLY TO NOTICE
NO.SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BOND IN FORM GST MOV-08 DATED
14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 33 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
EXHIBIT P12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BOND IN FORM GST MOV-08 DATED
14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
EXHIBIT P12(b) TRUE COPY OF THE BOND IN FORM GST MOV-08 DATED
14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF DETENTION ORDER NO.
SCN.49/MB.05/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P12(c) TRUE COPY OF THE BOND IN FORM GST MOV-08 DATED
14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF DETENTION ORDER NO.
SCN.50/MB.05/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE NO. IBG 108854
DATED 14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF NOTICE NO. MS1/SCN.43/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P13(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE NO.108846 DATED
14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF NOTICE NO. MS1/SCN.44/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P13(b) TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE NO. IBG 108852
DATED 14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF NOTICE NO. SCN.49/MB.05/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE NO.IBG 108850
DATED 14.08.2020 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF NOTICE NO. SCN.50/MB/05/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER FORM GST MOV-05
DATED 15.08.2020 IN RESPECT OF FORM GST MOV-02
NO.MS1/SCN.43/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P14(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER FORM GST MOV-05
DATED 15.08.2020 IN RESPECT OF FORM GST MOV-02
NO.MS1/SCN.44/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P14(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER FORM GST MOV-05
DATED 15.08.2020 IN RESPECT OF FORM GST MOV-02
NO.MS1/SCN.49/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P14(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER FORM GST MOV-05
DATED 15.08.2020 IN RESPECT OF FORM GST MOV-02
NO.MS1/SCN.50/2020-21.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF LABORATORY TEST REPORT NUMBERED
CTL/CH/N-0412/2020-21 DATED 29.07.2020 (N
RESPECT OF APPLE DRINK)
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 34 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
EXHIBIT P15(a) TRUE COPY OF LABORATORY TEST REPORT NUMBERED
CTL/CH/N-0415/2020-21 DATED 29/07/2020(IN
RESPECT OF MANGO DRINK)
EXHIBIT P15(b) TRUE COPY OF LABORATORY TEST REPORT CTL/CH/N-
0416/2020-21 DATED 29/07/2020(IN RESPECT OF
TILO-POWER COLA)
EXHIBIT P15(c) TRUE COPY OF LABORATORY TEST REPORT NUMBERED
CTL/CH/N-0417/2020-21 DATED 29/07/2020 (IN
RESPECT OF TILO CLEAR LEMON)
EXHIBIT P15(d) TRUE COPY OF LABORATORY TEST REPORT NUMBERED
CTL/CH/N-0419/2020-21 DATED 29/07/2020 (IN
RESPECT OF TILO ORANGE)
EXHIBIT P15(e) TRUE COPY OF LABORATORY TEST REPORT NUMBERED
CTL/CH/N-0420/2020-21 DATED 29/07/2020 (IN
RESPECT OF TILO - LIME).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.22072/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED WORK ORDER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INVOICE NO.8003237 DATED
10.08.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PACKING LIST
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY DATED 20.08.2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY KSEB DATED
29.07.2020
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE E-INVOICE DATED 07.10.2020
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF E-WAYBILL DATED 07.10.2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PACKING LIST
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV 1 FOR VEHICLE NO.TN 42
AB 6969 DATED 08.10.2020
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV 1 FOR VEHICLE NO.AND
KL 49 JI 1855 DATED 08.10.2020
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GST OV 2 FOR VEHICLE NO.TN 42
AB 6969 DATED 08.10.2020
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV2 FOR VEHICLE NO.KL 49
JI 1855 OF 08.10.2020
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED
09.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF DELIVERY CHALLAN FOR VEHICLE
NO.CAB/2021/TRD/2015
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICAL VERTIFICATION REPORT
IN FORM GST MOV 4 DATED 10.10.2020 FOR VEHICLE
NO.TN 42 AB 6969
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION REPORT
IN FROM GST MOV 4 DATED 10.10.2020 FOR VEHICLE
NO.TN 42 AB 6969
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION REPORT
IN FORM GST MOV 4 DATED 10.10.2020 FOR VEHICLE
NO.KL 49 JI 1855
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 10.10.2020
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV 6 DATED 10.10.2020 FOR
VEHICLE N,O.TN 42 AB 6969
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV 6 DATED 10.10.2020 FOR
VEHICLE NO.KL 49 JI 1855
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV 7 10.10.2020 FOR
VEHICLE NO.TN 42 AB 6969
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV 7 10.10.2020 FOR
VEHICLKE NO.KL 49 JI 1855
EXHIBIT 23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.10.2020 THROUGH
GMAIL.
EXHIBIT R24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/10/2020
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 15.10.2020 ISSUED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FORM GST MOV-09
EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE GST MOV-09 ORDER NO.VC
III/225/20-21 DATED :NIL.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.17379/2020
W.P.(C).No.22072/2020 & :: 37 ::
W.P.(C).No.22608/2020
APPENDIX OF W.P(C).NO.22608/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 18-08-2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE E WAY bill no 611211057923
EXHIBIT P3 true copy of the statutory form mov-1
EXHIBIT P3A true copy of the statutory form mov-2
EXHIBIT P3B TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FORM MOV-4
EXHIBIT P3C TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FORM MOV-6
EXHIBIT P3D TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FORM MOV-7
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 26-08-2020
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE ORDER IN FORM MOV NO. 5
ON 28-08-2020
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
