2018 (5) TMI 526 - HC - GST

Detention of goods with vehicle - E-Way Bill No.01 not available - Held that - respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad--XI, Kanpur, U.P. is directed to appear before the Court on 13.04.2018 to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced - respondents are directed to release the seized goods and vehicle forthwith - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interception and detention of goods due to the absence of E-Way Bill No.01 despite its generation and production, justification of seizure order under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017, suspension of E-Way Bill No.01 requirement by the Central Government, challenge to the interception and seizure orders, requirement for the Assistant Commissioner to explain the legal authority for interception and seizure, direction to release the seized goods and vehicle.

Analysis:
The case involves a consignor and consignee, both registered dealers, where the consignee purchased goods from the consignor and the goods were being transported from Haryana to Kanpur. The consignor paid CGST and SGST amounts as per the invoice. However, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur due to the absence of E-Way Bill No.01, leading to the issuance of an interception/detention memo. The E-Way Bill was generated and produced before the authorities but a seizure order was passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017, stating the goods were being transported without the E-Way Bill. The petitioner argued that the E-Way Bill requirement was suspended by the Central Government and that the seizure order was unjustified.

During the proceedings, the Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents failed to justify the seizure order in light of the circumstances. The High Court observed a trend of petitions challenging interceptions and seizures due to E-Way Bill issues. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner was summoned to explain the legal basis for the interception and seizure despite the E-Way Bill being generated and produced. The Court ordered that the effect of the seizure order shall be suspended until the Assistant Commissioner appears, directing the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle.

In conclusion, the High Court scrutinized the legality of the interception and seizure in the context of E-Way Bill compliance, highlighting the suspension of E-Way Bill No.01 requirement by the Central Government. The Court sought clarification from the Assistant Commissioner regarding the authority for the actions taken, emphasizing the need for proper justification for interceptions and seizures in similar cases. The order to release the goods and vehicle underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring transparency in enforcement actions related to E-Way Bill regulations.