2018 (5) TMI 455 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods with vehicle - detention on the ground that Part-B of e-way bill was incomplete - contention of the petitioner before the authority below was that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of tax during the course of intra-state sale of the goods - Held that - no ill intention at the hands of the petitioner nor the petitioner was supposed to fill up Part-B giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in a vehicle, which is meant for transportation to the same to its end destination. In the present case, all the documents were accompanied the goods, details are duly mentioned which reflects from the perusal of the documents. Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. Seizure order do not sustain - goods with vehicle are directed to be released - petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of e-way bill and filling of Part-B.
2. Seizure of goods and penalty under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017.
3. Interpretation of Notification No.12/2018 dated 07.03.2018 regarding e-way bill requirements.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in industrial supply, exported stainless steel welded pipes with an IGST charge of 18%. The goods were intercepted during transportation due to an allegedly incomplete e-way bill. The petitioner argued that the e-way bill was valid for the purpose of transportation to the consignee and that Part-B was not required to be filled before loading. The respondent issued a seizure order and penalty notice under Section 129(1) of the Act, claiming irregularity in the e-way bill. The petitioner contended that the seizure was an abuse of process, as all necessary details were provided, and there was no intention to evade tax.

2. The respondent, while acknowledging the presence of all required documents, insisted on the importance of filling Part-B of the e-way bill. The court examined the relevant documents and found no malicious intent on the petitioner's part. It held that the seizure order lacked justification, as the petitioner had complied with the necessary documentation. The court emphasized that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's arguments and the provisions of the notification dated 07.03.2018. Consequently, the court quashed the seizure order and penalty notice, directing the release of the goods and vehicle.

3. The court analyzed Notification No.12/2018 dated 07.03.2018, specifically Rule 138(3) third proviso, which exempts the furnishing of conveyance details in Part-B for transportation within a 50 km distance. The petitioner relied on this provision to support its claim that filling Part-B was not mandatory before loading the goods. The court agreed with the petitioner's interpretation of the notification, emphasizing that the petitioner acted in accordance with the law and should not be penalized for a technicality. The court's decision to quash the seizure order was based on the petitioner's compliance with legal requirements and the absence of any fraudulent intent.