Detention of goods cannot be justified for mentioning consignee as unregistered person in e-way bill

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No.17377 OF 2020(V)
Dated: 21.08.2020

ABCO TRADES (P) LTD
Vs

1. THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO-III,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
2. THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
CENTRAL EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, PALA
4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TO TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT DELHI, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
6. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL, NEW DELHI
FOR PETITIONERS: ADVS. SRI.AJI V.DEV, SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
FOR RESPONDENTS: G.P.SRI.THUSHARA JAMES

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5(c) order of detention that was issued to it detaining a consignment of lubricant oil that was being transported at its instance. On a perusal of Ext.P5(c) detention order, it is seen that the objection of the 1st respondent is that the consignee was shown as an unregistered person in the e-way bill that accompanied the transportation of the goods. That apart, it is also pointed out that the petitioner had collected CGST and SGST in the delivery challan that was used for stock transfer of the goods thereby giving rise to a suspicion with regard to the nature of the transaction itself.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the e-way bill showed the consignee as an unregistered person, the invoice that accompanied the transportation clearly referred to the GSTIN of the consignee and hence, the mere mention of the consignee as an unregistered person in the e-way bill cannot be of any significance. Secondly, it is stated that the mention of the tax applicable in the delivery challan was by mistake for it is evident that when the goods are stock transferred and not sold, there need not be a payment of tax at all.

Taking note of the said submission, I find that the reasons shown in Ext.P5(c) for detaining the consignment are not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act. The detention in the instant case cannot, therefore, be seen as justified. I therefore allow the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to immediately release the goods and the vehicle covered by Ext.P5(c) detention notice, on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent. The Government Pleader shall also communicate the gist of this judgment to the 1st respondent so as to enable the petitioner to effect an immediate clearance of the goods and the vehicle. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for further action.