Page 45 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] COMMERCIAL STEEL COMPANY v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX 259
11. Quoting the terms of the invoice, it was contended how the total
value of the goods in the vehicle transporting them from Karnataka to Hydera-
bad was arrived at; that even if the goods are coming from Karnataka there is a
possibility that the goods were to be sold to third-party as a local sale or not in-
tended to be delivered at the correct place indicated in the documents being car-
ried in the conveyance/vehicle.
12. It is further contended that if the goods were to be delivered at
Balanagar according to the invoice, the vehicle cannot be at Jeedimetla since
Balanagar comes first and Jeedimetla later, and no reasonable person would
cross over Balanagar and then turnover to go back to the place of destination. It
is also stated that there is a road from Jeedimetla to Balanagar which can be used
to turn back to Balanagar. But, if the said road is blocked due to strikes or repairs
or if there are rallies only that can be done, and there is no reason assigned to
take the longer route avoiding the normal route.
13. It was further contended that no objection was raised regarding the
notice to pay tax and penalty, and the amount was also paid without any protest.
14. It is alleged that under the guise of inter-State sale or supply, the
petitioner tried to sell the goods in the local market evading levies both under the
CGST and SGST. It is stated that the 1st respondent had authorisedly issued the
impugned notice on 11-12-2019 to detain the goods.
15. It was also stated that the 1st respondent had valid authorization to
detain the vehicle with the goods.
The consideration by the Court
16. We have noted the contentions of both sides.
17. Admittedly, it was mentioned in the order of detention of the vehi-
cle and the consignment carried thereon from Karnataka to Hyderabad issued
under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 that the reason for such detention is
‘wrong destination’. Under the Act, this is not a ground to detain the vehicle carry-
ing the goods or levy tax or penalty.
18. Though it is stated that tax and penalty were levied and collected
because it was presumed that at Jeedimetla, there was possibility of a local sale, a
mere possibility cannot clothe the 1st respondent to take the impugned action.
There is no material placed on record by the 1st respondent to show that any at-
tempt was made by the petitioner to deliver the goods at a different place and
sell in the local market evading CGST and SGST, because it was found at Jeedi-
metla. It is not as if the detention was affected by the 1st respondent after notic-
ing any such attempt to sell the goods in the local market by the petitioner.
19. When the vehicle is being driven from Karnataka by a local driver
of Karnataka it is perfectly possible for the driver to lose his way on account of
being unfamiliar with the roads in the city of Hyderabad and bypassing Balana-
gar and going to Jeedimetla. Or else he may have entered the City by a Ring
Road from the direction of Jeedimetla to go towards Balangar, his destination.
20. So the fact that the vehicle was found at Jeedimetla does not auto-
matically lead to any presumption that there was an intention on the part of the
petitioner to sell the goods at the local market evading the CGST and SGST.
21. The invoice in the custody of the driver of the vehicle indicated that
IGST @ 18% was already collected and the goods were coming from Karnataka to
Balanagar in Hyderabad. When the IGST was already paid, the goods cannot be
GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  165