2017 (11) TMI 1921 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - Supari - E-way Bill was not presented at the time of seizure of the goods - HELD THAT - It is not denied to the State that the recommendations have been made by the GST Council in the 22nd Meeting at New Delhi on 6th October, 2017 by which the requirement of filing the E-way Bill has been suspended by the State Government for the time being. Even otherwise the petitioner has stated in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit that he did obtain the E-Way Bill and he did present it before the authority concerned within two hours but it was not accepted by the respondent-State. In view of the fact that there is a recommendation of GST Council that till 31st of March, 2018 the demand of an E-way Bill will not be made. The demand itself and the consequential demand of cash security is not justified - respondents are directed to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith subject to deposit of security to the extent of 50% of the value of goods in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee, which will abide by penalty proceedings - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Seizure of goods due to E-way Bill non-presentation, GST Council recommendations, acceptance of E-way Bill, justification of demand for E-way Bill, release of goods, deposit of security, penalty proceedings.

In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner's goods were seized upon entering Uttar Pradesh due to the non-presentation of the E-way Bill, despite the petitioner claiming to have obtained and presented it within two hours. The State did not provide a reason for not accepting the E-way Bill, merely stating it was never presented. The court noted the GST Council's recommendation suspending the E-way Bill requirement until March 31, 2018. Consequently, the court found the demand for the E-way Bill and cash security unjustified. As a result, the court directed the State to release the petitioner's goods upon depositing security equivalent to 50% of the goods' value in a form other than cash or bank guarantee, which would be subject to penalty proceedings.

The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to GST Council recommendations and ensuring that demands for E-way Bills are made in accordance with the prevailing regulations. The court's decision to release the goods upon the specified security deposit aimed to balance the interests of both the petitioner and the State, while upholding the principles of justice and fairness. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for proper justification and adherence to legal provisions in cases involving the seizure of goods and the presentation of required documentation like the E-way Bill.