Page 81 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

2020 ] K.P. SUGANDH LTD. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 319
ents/Department and asked for the details of the consignment. The driver of the
vehicle i.e. the person, who was Incharge of the conveyance at the time of inter-
ception produced before the authorities the relevant invoice bill and also pro-
duced the e-way bill as was required under the Act to the authorities concerned.
4. Inspite of the Incharge of the conveyance producing the necessary
invoice bill and the e-way bill the respondent authorities seized the vehicle and
the goods on the grounds of there being discrepancies in the valuation of the
goods and thereafter detained the vehicle and the goods. Subsequently, a notice
(Annexure P/4) dated 14-1-2020 FORM GST MOV-07 under Section 129(3) of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued to the person Incharge of
the conveyance i.e. the driver. Immediately, thereafter the petitioners moved an
application for release of the vehicle vide their response dated 17-1-2020. With-
out considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the said reply
to the notice, the respondents have passed the impugned order (Annexure P/1)
whereby they have assessed the tax payable on the goods as also the penalty ap-
plicable on the said assessment made for the purpose of releasing of the goods
and the vehicle. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ peti-
tion.
5. The contention of the petitioners primarily is that when a transport
vehicle is intercepted by the authorities of the respondents all that person In-
charge of the conveyance is required to keep along with him is the documents as
is required under Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017
and Rules 138 & 139 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules of 2017. Ac-
cording to the Counsel for the petitioners, discrepancies in the valuation of the
goods is not a ground, which would be available for the Department for detain-
ing and seizure of the vehicle and goods. According to the Counsel for the peti-
tioners, while intercepting the transport vehicle carrying goods all that Inspector
has to verify is that whether the person Incharge of the conveyance has the in-
voice bill for the goods being transported and whether the driver also has the e-
way bill.
6. According to the petitioners, the respondents if at all in the course of
inspection of the vehicle or the moment they find that there was discrepancy in
the valuation, they could not have seized and detained the vehicle or the goods
rather should have permitted the vehicle to proceed further to the destination of
supply as per the invoice. It was the contention of the petitioners that as regards
the dispute of valuation, the respondent authorities could have initiated a pro-
ceeding against the petitioners in accordance with law as is applicable for eva-
sion of tax. According to the petitioners, the item seized by the respondent au-
thorities is also perishable and it has its own shelf life. It was further contended
that in case if the goods are not immediately released, the petitioners shall be put
to substantial irrecoverable loss for no fault of theirs. It was lastly contended by
the petitioners that the plain reading of the notice under Section 129 issued vide
Annexure P/4 and the order passed by the respondents (Annexure P/1) would
clearly reveal that there is no specific details of the evasion of tax as such reflect-
ed from the notice except for a bald allegation of discrepancy in valuation.
7. The State Counsel on the contrary opposing the petition submits that
it is a case where during the course of inspection of the conveyance, the Inspect-
ing Agencies found discrepancies in the valuation of the goods being transported
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  81