Transporter Of Goods May Seek Release Of Only The Conveyance: Madras High Court

The division bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the phrase 'person transporting the goods' in Sections 129(1) and (6) to mean the owner or his agent who has contracted to supply the goods, and not the transporter who will provide the carriage for the same. Both sub-Sections 129(1) and (6) use the phrase 'goods or conveyance' whereas the proviso extends the benefit of release, upon terms, to the transporter, but restricted to the conveyance alone.

The petitioner had been engaged to supply TMT bars from Hosur at the address of the consignee work site at Trichy. An e-way bill had been generated for the movement of goods and the goods were being transported accompanied by documents. The State Tax Officer had intercepted the consignment on 11.07.2022 and detained it.

The form GST Mov-2 was issued on the ground that the address for delivery did not have a corresponding GSTIN or trade name. An order of detention was passed under Section 129(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

A proposal for levy of penalty followed, that the petitioner responded to, with an explanation. An order of demand of penalty in GST MOV-09 has come to be passed on 19.07.2022.

It falls upon the transporter to take appropriate action, at the least to safeguard the conveyance, in which the consignment had been transported. However, the transporter goes one step forward and argues that the provision of Section 129 of the Act, that deals with 'detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit', and permits the release of detained goods upon compliance with the conditions set out therein, would be equally applicable to it.

The petitioner contended that the benefit granted to the owner of the goods to seek release of the detained goods on payment of a penalty or furnishing of security would be equally applicable to the case of a transporter as well.

The department contended that ​​ the proviso to Section 129(6) states that the 'conveyance' shall be released on payment by the transporter of penalty or a sum of Rs.1,00,000 whichever is less.

The court held that if the owner/agent/representative does not come forward to claim the same after receipt of notices from the department and upon satisfaction of the conditions under Section 129, it is open to the revenue to take such steps as it may deem fit in that regard.

The court noted that the legislature has been conscious of the roles of the various persons involved in a transaction of carriage of goods such as the consignor/agents/representatives, the consignee/purchasers and transporter. The entitlement to seek release has also been carefully and consciously sculpted. While the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, only a limited benefit has been made available to a transporter, and that too, the release of conveyance alone.

Case Title: TCI Freight Versus The Assistant Commissioner

Case No: WP.Nos.18753, 20794 & 21690 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.19869, 19870, 20687 & 20691 of 2022

Date: 25.08.2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Aparna Nandhakumar

Counsel For Respondent: Additional Government Pleader C.Harsha Raj

Click Here To Read/Download Order