Page 179 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] UMIYA ENTERPRISE v. ASSTT. STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPTT., PALAKKAD 81
travention of Sec. 129 of the GST Act and the consequent attempt at evasion of
tax would lack any factual and legal teeth. That the petitioner is a taxable person
discharging its tax liability by filing true and correct returns and payment of tax.
The inter-State supply of goods in question being entered in the KVATIS Portal
by the supplier electronically through valid E-way bill which cannot be altered,
any possibility of evasion of tax will not arise at all.
6. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is to be noted that the matter in relation to the deten-
tion of the goods as per the impugned Ext.P7 proceedings will have to be sub-
jected to adjudication proceedings and only thereafter it can be finalised. There-
fore, this Court need not make any final pronouncement on any of the above said
issues. It is for the petitioner to raise all those contentions as and when he is giv-
en opportunity of hearing prior to the finalisation of the adjudication proceed-
ings pursuant to the detention proceedings referred to in Ext.P7. However, this
Court is constrained to say that, after hearing both sides, the petitioner has made
out a strong case by which this Court is persuaded to accept the view that the
goods and vehicle detained pursuant to Ext.P7 order could be released to the
petitioner on the basis of simple bond and it need not be insisted that the peti-
tioner will have to furnish a bank guarantee for the amounts demanded in Ext.P7
order.
7. On being queried, the respondents do not have any case that the pe-
titioner concern has any previous adverse records of tax evasions or non-
compliance of the tax laws. The above said contentions raised by the petitioner
on the basis of Ext.P2 E-way bill is substantially strong to persuade this Court
that the goods could be released on condition that the petitioner executes a sim-
ple bond in that regard. Hence, it is ordered that the 1st respondent shall imme-
diately release the goods and vehicle detained pursuant to Ext.P7 order to the
petitioner on the petitioner executing a simple bond in that regard. However, the
1st respondent will be at liberty to proceed further with the adjudication pro-
ceedings in relation to Ext.P7 order and for that purpose, notice of hearing may
be given to the petitioner and the petitioner should be permitted to give detailed
written submissions in the matter. It is pointed out by Sri K.L. Sreekumaran,
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the basic supplier is in Tamil
Nadu and since the transaction was on 10-1-2020, the time limit for them to file
the returns in that regard under the IGST Act is upto 20th of next month, which
is in the instant case would be 20-2-2020. Further that steps will be taken by the
petitioner to ascertain whether the local supplier in Tamil Nadu has filed the re-
turn in that regard in relation to the above said transaction etc. Therefore, it may
be better for the 1st respondent to wait till 20-2-2020 before the opportunity of
personal hearing is granted to the petitioner for finalisation of the adjudication
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 order. The petitioner may take steps to ensure
that the details are collected from the local supplier involved in this transaction,
which is based in Tamil Nadu, to ascertain whether the said agency has duly
filed their returns showing the above said transaction also etc. and if such details
are also available, the petitioner may produce those materials also before the 1st
respondent, as a matter of abundant caution to convince the 1st respondent that
there is no loss of revenue involved in this case etc. Thereafter, the 1st respond-
ent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through
authorised representative or Counsel, if any and then will pass final orders in the
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  243