2018 (11) TMI 331 - HC - GST

Detention of goods with vehicle - delay in transporting the consignment after filing E-way bill due to flood - Held that - The petitioner has every document to transport the goods safely, save the expiry of the time prescribed in the e-way bill. It is preposterous to contend that the petitioner delayed the transport deliberately-for no purpose. Granted, I cannot find fault with the authorities in detaining the goods. But once the petitioner has explained the circumstances through Exts.P8 and P8(a), they ought to have taken a lenient view-rather a practical view - the respondents will release the goods after securing personal bond from the petitioner-that is, without insisting on the bank guarantee - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of e-way bill validity under GST Act; Detention of goods under Section 129 of the GST Act due to expired e-way bill; Justification for delay in transportation due to natural calamity.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, migrated to the Goods and Services Tax Act and purchased goods from a company in Maharashtra. The goods were transported to Kerala via a parcel agency, but the vehicle broke down in Karnataka and faced delays due to unprecedented floods in Kerala, leading to the expiry of the e-way bill.

The respondent authorities intercepted the goods in Kasaragod and detained them under Section 129 of the GST Act. The petitioner submitted replies but eventually filed a Writ Petition seeking relief. The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had ample time to transport the goods before the e-way bill expiry and that the flood situation deteriorated only after the vehicle was ready for transport.

The petitioner's counsel countered, stating that the floods caused unavoidable delays in transportation and that the transporter acted reasonably given the circumstances. The court noted that the e-way bill was valid until 18.08.2018, and acknowledged the breakdown of the vehicle and the subsequent flood situation in Kerala, leading to delays beyond the petitioner's control.

While agreeing that the authorities were justified in detaining the goods initially, the court held that considering the circumstances and the petitioner's explanations, a practical and lenient view should be taken. The court ordered the release of the goods upon the petitioner providing a personal bond, without insisting on a bank guarantee, clarifying that this arrangement would not impact the adjudication under Section 129 of the Act.