In WPA 190 of 2023-CAL HC- Sec.129 of CGST Act, 2017 empowers statutory authority to detain vehicle and seize goods, clarifies Calcutta HC
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri [06-02-2023]

Read Order: ASHOK AND SONS (HUF) V. JOINT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR JOINT COMMISSIONER, SILIGURI CIRCLE & ORS 

Mansimran Kaur

Kolkata, February 16, 2023: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition by observing that the respondent authority was lawfully permitted to impose a penalty under Section 129 as well as the SGST as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the State.

By filing the instant writ petition, before the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, the petitioner assailed an imposition of SGST and penalty for the year March 14, 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Investigation (North Bengal) Headquarter.

The petitioner, a manufacturer/supplier of milestone Bitumen Emulsion and Allied products, was  a Registered Taxable Person duly registered under the GST Act with specific GSTIN number. 

In course of business, the petitioner supplied 158 drums of Bitumen Emulsion containing 200 kgs in each drum, dated March 5, 2022 generating proper E-Way bill which was valid up to  March 9,  2022 from Begusarai to Guwahati. For the purpose of transporting the said goods the petitioner paid IGST at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs.2, 58,804.

On payment of IGST E-Way bill was generated for transportation of the said goods from Begusarai to Guwahati. In the course of transportation the good carriage suffered from breakdown and it was detained in a motor vehicle garage within the jurisdiction of Jalpaiguri.

 The vehicle was intercepted by the State Tax Officer on March 12, 2022 and on inspection it was found that the E-Way bill in respect of the consignment had expired. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Investigation Headquarter imposed SGST at the rate of Rs.2, 58,804/- and penalty on SGST to the tune of Rs.7, 18,900 and asked the petitioner to pay the said tax with penalty. In order to release the vehicle the petitioner had to pay tax and the vehicle, but preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. By an order dated August 23, 2022 the appeal was dismissed.

After considering the submissions, the Court noted, “Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 empowers the statutory authority to detain the vehicle and seize the goods. The goods shall be released only on payment of penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on such goods”

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed that the respondent authority was lawfully permitted to impose a penalty under Section 129 as well as the SGST as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the State.

For such reasons stated above, the writ petition was dismissed.