2018 (4) TMI 1974 - HC - GST

Detention and seizure of goods - goods not accompanied by the E-way bill-01 - HELD THAT - On perusal of relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition and found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations. There are no irregularity in the present transaction and, therefore, the seizure order as well as penalty notice dated 22.03.2018 issued under Sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings are hereby set aside. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods for not having E-way bill-01
2. Seizure under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act
3. Validity of seizure order and penalty notice

Analysis:
1. The case involved the detention of goods during transportation due to the absence of an E-way bill-01. The goods were being transported from one location to another, and the respondent detained the goods citing the lack of the required documentation. However, the petitioner presented evidence of having obtained the E-way bill before the detention, thus complying with the necessary regulations.

2. The court examined the relevant documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills, to assess the legality of the seizure under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act. Upon review, it was established that the petitioner had indeed acquired the E-way bill in accordance with the law before the detention and seizure of the goods. The court found that all essential information was disclosed in the E-way bill, indicating compliance with the statutory requirements.

3. Considering the presented evidence and the timeline of events, the court concluded that there was no irregularity in the transaction. Consequently, the seizure order, penalty notice issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act, and the subsequent proceedings were deemed unjustified. As a result, the court set aside the seizure order and penalty notice, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The court directed the immediate release of the goods and the vehicle seized during the incident, providing relief to the petitioner in the matter.