The consignee of goods is deemed the owner if invoices and e-way bills accompany the consignment, contrary to penalty orders based on inadequate findings.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has challenged the seizure order dated 12.08.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the penalty order dated 20.08.2023 also passed by the same respondent. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent no. 2 to drop auction proceedings of the seized goods as per notice dated 28.10.2023.

2. The second respondent had intercepted a consignment of Areca Nuts from truck bearing registration no. UP53 DT 9190. The petitioner, who is the consignee of the goods as mentioned in the bilty, invoice and e-way bill and is registered under the Act in Delhi applied for temporary registration. The petitioner after passing of the seizure order filed an application on 17.08.2023 for release of seized goods in its favour on the footing that he being the consignee, is entitled to release of the goods in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act after payment of penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on the seized goods. However, by order dated 28.08.2023, respondent no. 2 declined to release the seized goods in favour of the petitioner and also levied penalty by treating the case as one falling under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Act. The other finding is that on physical verification of the goods and documents, it transpired that there was variation in the description of good actually found with that mentioned in the documents and therefore, it would not be proper to hold the consignor or the consignee as actual owner of the goods.

3. Sri. Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents, at the time of seizure of goods, have prepared a seizure memo and according to it, the invoice and e-way Bill clearly mentions the petitioner as consignee of the goods; copies of the invoice and e-way Bills have been annexed in support of the claim. He also submits that the physical verification carried out by respondent no. 2 at the time of interception of the vehicle clearly reveals that the actual goods found in the vehicle tallied with the quantity mentioned in the invoice and as such the finding returned in the impugned order that the petitioner cannot be treated to be consignee is patently illegal. He further submits that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled much after the passing of the impugned order and therefore, according to his submission, at the time, the vehicle was intercepted the petitioner was holding a valid registration. He has relied on Circular dated 31.12.2018 issued by the department and points out that one of the aspects clarified in the said Circular is regarding person, who could be treated to be owner of the goods for purposes of Section 129 (1) of the Act.

4. The clarification given by the department mentions that "if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanied the consignment of goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be the owner. If the invoice or any other specified documents is not accompanied the consignment of goods, then in such case, a proper officer should determine, who should be declared as owner of the goods." In his submission since the invoice and e-way bill was accompanying the consignment of goods, therefore, as per own Circular of the department he was to be treated as owner of the goods.

5. Sri. Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the order has rightly been passed by treating the case of the petitioner to be falling under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section