Home      Free WhatsApp Updates      Services      Subscription Plans
🔒 Login    
Subscription Plans   
Taxreply tweets
GST News
About GST Library
E-Books
Subscription Plans
Offers New
GST Case Laws
GST Notifications / Circulars
GST Act / Rules
GST Act / Rules (Amendments)
GST Rates
Classification (Chapter Wise)
Classification (Search Tool)
GST Set-off Calculator
Full Site Search
National Anti-Profiteering Authority
GST Forms   
E-way Bill
Finance Bill
GST Amendment Statistics

High Court rejected the contention of GST Authorities for detention of petitioner's consignment on the ground that the three invoices (accompanied with goods) are not in consecutive serial numbers.

High Court directed repondents to release the goods detained.

Facts of case

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Detention notice under the GST Act that was served on him while goods were being transported. A perusal of detention notice indicates that the objection of the respondent is essentially with regard to the invoices that accompanied the transportation of the goods. It was found that the tax invoices furnished, although carried serial numbers, they were not consecutive for the three invoices. In particular, it was noticed that while one invoice carried the serial number as 46000152. The other two invoices carried the serial numbers 53000029 and 53000030.

Arguments of Revenue

The detaining authority suspected that the invoices carrying the serial numbers in between the two sets of invoices indicated above might have been used for transportation of other goods that were not brought to the notice of the Department.  

Held by High Court

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that e-way bills did accompany the goods. It is also not in dispute that the transportation was covered by tax invoices. The objection of the respondents is only that the invoices did not bear continuous numbers and hence they suspect that the invoices bearing serial numbers that fell between the numbers on the invoices produced at the time of transportation, could have been used for transportation of other goods that had not been brought to the notice of the Department.

In my view, the entertainment of such a doubt by the authority cannot be a justification for detaining the goods in question, especially when they were admittedly accompanied by tax invoices as also e-way bills that clearly indicated the particulars that were required by Rule 46 of the GST Rules. It is also relevant to note that the doubt entertained by the respondents were, at any rate, in respect of goods that may have been transported under cover of the invoices that numerically fell between the numbers shown in the invoices that were carried along with the goods, and in that sense, pertained to goods other than those that were actually detained. The detention in the instant case cannot be justified under Section 129 of the GST Act.

I therefore allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to forthwith release the goods detained.


Read Full Case Law

Subscribe to Complete GST Library

Share this article.
Published by

TaxReply

on Jul 27, 2020


Post your comment here !


8687