Case Details: DTDC Express Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (2025) 29 Centax 386 (A.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- R. Raghunandan Rao & Dr K. Manmadha Rao, JJ.
- Shri D.S. Sivadarshan for the Petitioner.
- Shri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a courier agency, received a notice in Form GST MOV-09, which required the payment of tax and penalty on goods detained during transit, allegedly in violation of the CGST Act. The petitioner, being a courier service provider with no ownership or involvement in the goods, feared being held liable for the tax and penalty already imposed on the detained goods. In response to this concern, the petitioner filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenging the notice and seeking relief from the potential tax and penalty liabilities. The petitioner argued that, despite its lack of involvement with the goods, it could be wrongly burdened with these demands. The department clarified that the notice was issued as an intimation to all parties involved in the transportation of the goods, urging them to claim ownership of the detained goods. The department further stated that since no one had come forward to claim ownership, the goods were confiscated, and no tax or penalty was being demanded from the petitioner.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the notice issued in Form GST MOV-09 was merely an intimation to all parties involved in the transportation of the detained goods, allowing them the opportunity to claim ownership. The department clarified that no tax or penalty was being demanded from the petitioner. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition and closed the matter, confirming that no liability for tax or penalty would be imposed on the petitioner under the notice.
