Page 83 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

2020 ] K.P. SUGANDH LTD. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 321
11. The High Court of Kerela in the case of “Alfa Group v. Assistant State
Tax Officer” (2020) 113 taxmann.com 222 (Kerela) = 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 142 (Ker.) in
an identical set of facts has held as under :
“On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
submissions made across the Bar, I find that none of the reasons stated in
Ext. P2 order justify detention of the goods. There is no provision under the
GST Act which mandates that the goods shall not be sold at prices below
the MRP declared thereon. Further, there is nothing in Ext. P2 order that
shows that, on account of the alleged wrong classification of the goods
there was any difference in the rate of tax that was adopted by the assessee.
In my view when the statutory scheme of the GST Act is such as to facilitate
a free movement of goods, after self assessment by the assessees concerned,
the respondents cannot resort to an arbitrary and statutorily unwarranted
detention of goods in the course of transportation. Such action on the part
of department officers can erode public confidence in the system of tax ad-
ministration in our country and, as a consequence, the country’s economy
itself. Under such circumstances, I quash Ext. P2 detention order and direct
the respondents to forthwith release the goods belonging to the petitioner
on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the said authori-
ty. I also direct the Commissioner, Kerala State Taxes Department, Thiru-
vananthapuram to issue suitable instructions to the field formations so that
such unwarranted detentions are not resorted to in future. The Registry
shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner, Kerala
State Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram for necessary action.”
12. A similar view has also been taken by the High Court of Gujarat for
grant of an interim relief in the case of “Sakul Naza Mohmd v. State of Gujarat” in
Special Civil Application No. 15655/2019.
13. So far as the ground of an alternative remedy available to the peti-
tioner as pleaded by the State Government is concerned, this Court is of the opin-
ion that since the case of the petitioners at the outset itself was that the entire
proceedings for detention of the vehicle and the seizure of the goods being in
total contravention to the GST law, relegating the petitioners to avail the alterna-
tive remedy of appeal under Section 107 would not be proper, legal and justified.
More particularly when this Court also finds that the proceedings of detention
and seizure of the goods and the vehicle by the respondents is without any au-
thority of law.
14. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the opinion that undervaluation of a good in the invoice cannot be a ground for
detention of the goods and vehicle for a proceeding to be drawn under Section
129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In view of the aforesaid the im-
pugned order Annexure P/1 i.e. the order passed under Section 129 and the or-
der of demand of tax and penalty both being unsustainable deserves to be and is
accordingly set aside/quashed. The respondents are forthwith directed to release
the goods belonging to the petitioners based on the invoice bill as well as the e-
way bill.
15. Quashment of the impugned order by itself would not preclude the
State Authorities from initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioners
for the alleged act of undervaluation of the goods as compared to the MRP on the
product in accordance with law.

GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  83