Mere change of route is not sufficient evidence to start confiscation proceedings: Gujarat HC

In this case, the consignment was intercepted and 2 discrepancies were found by the GST Authorities. These discrepancies were:

(i) Vehicle was intercepted while it was traveling in a different direction than the direction of its destination. So it is assumed that the goods were not moving to the place destined for. Hence it appeared that the goods were being transported with the intention to evade tax.

(ii) The value of goods being transported is shown Rs. 286/- which is too low compared to its Real Market Value i.e. 330/-.

What Honorable Gujarat High Court said in this matter?

• Honorable Gujarat High Court quashed the entire confiscation proceedings keeping in mind two things
• Court Further said that, mere change of route without anything more would not necessarily be sufficient to draw an inference that the intention was to evade tax. Sometimes, a change of route may assume importance provided there is cogent material with the department to indicate that an attempt was sought to be made to dispose of the goods indirectly at a particular place. If such is the case, then probably, the authority may be justified in initiating appropriate proceedings, but a mere change of route of the vehicle by itself is not sufficient.
• Additionally, the court quoted that, mere undervaluation of the goods also by itself is not sufficient to detain the goods and vehicle far from being liable to confiscation.