Court Releases Seized Goods Due to Honest Mistake in Invoice Handling

Case Name:

M/S. Ankur Carrier Express Cargo Service vs. Union of India

Writ Tax No. 648 of 2018

Key Takeaways:

- Human errors in documentation, if found to be genuine, may not warrant severe penalties like seizure of goods.

- The court emphasized the importance of assessing the overall bona fide nature of the transaction, rather than focusing solely on clerical mistakes.

- The judgment highlights the need for tax authorities to consider the context and intent behind documentation errors before taking punitive action.

Issue:

Was the seizure of goods justified when the error in documentation was due to a genuine mistake, and there was no finding of mala fide intent?

Facts:

The facts of this case for you in a friendly way. So, we've got this transport company, M/S. Ankur Carrier Express Cargo Service, that was moving goods for a company called M/s Ahuja Radio.

Now, here's where things got a bit messy:

- Ahuja Radio had two shipments: 131 boxes going to Patna, Bihar, and 81 boxes heading to Ranchi, Jharkhand.

- They issued two separate invoices for these shipments, both dated March 27, 2018.

- Here's the oops moment - the transporter accidentally mixed up the paperwork. They attached the invoice for the 81 boxes (meant for Ranchi) to the shipment of 131 boxes going to Patna.

- This mix-up happened at the transporter's office in Ghaziabad, U.P.

- The goods were loaded onto two different vehicles: UP-13T-9197 and HR 38W-2581.

- On March 30, 2018, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad (Unit-6) in Gautambudh Nagar seized the goods and the vehicle UP-13T-9197.

- The tax folks weren't too happy about this paperwork mix-up, and that's what led to this whole legal drama.

Arguments:

The transporter's side (the petitioner):

- They said, "Look, this was just an honest mistake. Our staff in Ghaziabad goofed up and put the wrong invoice with the wrong shipment."

- They argued that apart from this mix-up, everything else about the transaction was legit and above board.

- They pointed out that both shipments had the correct IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) charged at 18%.

The tax authority's side (the respondent):

- They said, "Hold up, we found 11 bilties (transport receipts) and 11 invoices during our inspection, but the numbers didn't match up."

- They were concerned that the documents for the 81 boxes (meant for Ranchi) were with the 131 boxes going to Patna.

- They also noted that an e-way bill had been generated on February 27, 2018, for delivery through a different vehicle (HR-38W-2581).

Key Legal Precedents:

In this case, the court didn't explicitly cite any previous cases as precedents. However, they did refer to Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, which deals with the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Judgement:

- The court said, "You know what? We think the transporter has a point here."

- They agreed that it was just a human error that caused the invoice mix-up.

- They noted that the tax authorities didn't find anything else fishy about the transaction besides this paperwork mistake.

- The court also pointed out that after the introduction of GST laws, the Transit Declaration Form-I (TDF-I) isn't even required for moving goods through Uttar Pradesh anymore.

- They considered that the transporter is a legit company with proper registration and a national permit.

- So, the court told the tax authorities (specifically, respondent no.4) to release the goods and the vehicle.

- But here's the catch - the transporter needs to provide an indemnity bond for the amount of tax assessed by the authorities.

- The court ordered the immediate release of the goods related to invoice No. 226158 (the one seized on March 27, 2018) once this order is complied with.

- In essence, the court said, "Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.

- It was an honest mistake, so let's sort this out without being too harsh."

FAQs:

Q1: Does this mean any mistake in documentation can be excused?

A1: Not necessarily. The court considered the overall bona fide nature of the transaction. Each case would be judged on its own merits.

Q2: What's the significance of the indemnity bond?

A2: It ensures that the government's interests are protected while allowing the release of the goods.

Q3: Does this judgment set a precedent for similar cases?

A3: While it's not explicitly stated as a precedent, it could influence how authorities and courts approach similar cases of genuine errors in documentation.

Q4: What should transporters learn from this case?

A4: It highlights the importance of careful documentation, but also shows that courts may be understanding of genuine mistakes if the overall transaction is legitimate.

Q5: Did the court comment on the e-way bill discrepancy?

A5: The judgment doesn't specifically address the e-way bill issue, focusing more on the invoice mix-up.

Heard Sri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

The instant writ petition has been filed against the seizure order dated 30.03.2018 passed by respondent no.4, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad (Unit-6), Gautam budh Nagar, who has seized the goods and the vehicle of the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle no. U.P.-13T-9197.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietor and is engaged to transport the goods belongs to one M/s Ahuja Radio, 215 Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi. The said consignment having total 131 boxes was to be delivered at M/s R.B. Electronics, Harsh Vardhan Arcade, Fraser Road, Patna, Bihar and another consignment of 81 boxes was to be delivered at the branch office situated at Ranchi, Jharkhand. The consignor M/s Ahuja Radio has issued two invoices bearing Invoices no.2652 and Invoice no. 2653 dated 27.03.2018 against the aforesaid 131 and 81 boxes for delivery at Patna, Bihar and Ranchi, Jharkhand. The aforesaid invoices issued by the consignor clearly indicates the charge of IGST @ 18% on the value of the goods sold. The petitioner being the transporter company has prepared the GR indicating therein all the details including the details of invoice. The goods were transported from New Delhi and at the office/godown of the petitioner situated at Ghaziabad, U.P., the same were loaded in two vehicles being vehicle Nos.U.P.13-T-9197 and HR 38W-2581.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to mistake by the office of the petitioner at Ghaziabad, the bill and invoice of M/s Ahuja Radio for delivery at Ranchi, Jharkhand of branch M/s R.B. Electronics has been enclosed with the documents related to the goods to be delivered at Patna, Bihar.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is nothing but bonafide mistake at the hands of the office personnel of the petitioner's company and due to the said error/mistake in the Transit Declaration Form-I (TDF-I) the details are similarly mentioned, however, the bilty no.226158 dated 27.03.2018 was correctly found for the transportation of 131 boxes to be delivered at Patna, Bihar.

The respondent no.4 has detained the goods of M/s Ahuja Radio and has passed the seizure order on 30.03.2018, under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') on the ground that the goods against the bilty no. 226158 dated 27.03.2018 related to 131 boxes also accompanying the

documents related to 81 boxes of the same party M/s Ahuja Radio which are to be delivered at Ranchi, Jharkhand and that the e-way bill has been generated on 27.02.2018 for delivery through other vehicle no. HR-38W-2581.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the documents which are enclosed along with the writ petition.

We have noticed that two invoices have been prepared by M/s Ahuja Radio, New Delhi being Invoice No.226158 and Invoice No. 226159 respectively. The details of goods as well as details of buyers were mentioned being R.B. Electrons, Harsh Vardhan Arcade, Fraser Road, Patna, Bihar and M/s R.B. Electronics plot no. H80 and H81 Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, Ranchi,

Jharkhand. In both the invoices the IGST @ 18 % has been charged. The assessing authority has proceeded to pass the seizure order under Section 129 (1) of the Act on the ground that during the course of inspection of the goods, there were 11 bilties prepared by the transport company and against the said transaction 11 invoices were produced for verification as well as a Transit Declaration Form (TDF-1), whereas on inspection, it is noticed that the bill no. 226158 dated 27.03.2018 has been prepared for 131 boxes to be transported from Delhi to Patna, whereas the invoice enclosed along with the said goods related to 81 boxes also. Based on the aforesaid reasoning, the impugned seizure order is passed.

We find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is on account of human error, the invoice related to goods to be transported from Delhi to Jharkhand related to 81 boxes has been mistakenly handed over to the goods transported from Delhi to Patna. There is no finding recorded by the seizing authority that except the said mistake the transaction in question was not found bonafide. There is no requirement of TDF Form-I for the purpose of moment of goods through the State of U.P. The requirement of TDF-I is not essential after the introduction of UPGST/CGST laws. The petitioner is a transport company but we noticed that he is registered for transportation of goods and having the national permit and since the mistake has been committed by the staff of the transporter, therefore, the petitioner came forward to participate in the proceedings and since the proceedings are being carried out in the name of the petitioner as well as the seller situated at Delhi and both are the genuine persons/dealer.

In view of above, we direct the respondent no.4 to release the goods in favour of the petitioner on furnishing of the indemnity bond to the extend of tax assessed by the respondent no.4. We further direct the respondent no.4 to release the goods and the vehicle forthwith in favour of the petitioner related to invoice No. 226158 seized on 27.03.2018 after compliance of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 23.4.2018

A.Kr.

[Ashok Kumar, J.]

[Krishna Murari, J.]