2019 (10) TMI 33 - HC - GST

Release of Seized vehicle alongwith goods - CGST Act - E-way bill was not tendered for the goods in movement - machinery on the way to be taken back to the premises of the petitioner directly to Yadav Trading Co., namely, the dealer from whom the machinery has been purchased for the purpose of repairs - HELD THAT - The old and used Winch Machine was being transported from the premises of Yadav Trading Co. where it had been sent for repairs and was being transported back to Nirma Ltd., there is substance in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that at best, the petitioner would be liable to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/- as contemplated under clause (xiv) of section 122 of the GGST Act, 2017. Issue notice, returnable on 17.10.2019.

Summary

Issues:
Interception of vehicle transporting machinery without e-way bill under GGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner had a work order for job-work involving a Winch Machine transported to Nirma Ltd. for repairs. The machine was taken back to the petitioner's premises for repairs by the dealer. However, during transportation back to Nirma Ltd., the vehicle was intercepted and seized under section 130 of the GGST Act, 2017, due to the absence of an e-way bill for the goods in movement.

The petitioner argued that the interception occurred before the e-way bill was generated, and the goods were being transported back for job-work, not for any taxable supply. Reference was made to section 2(108) of the GGST Act, 2017, defining taxable supply as goods or services leviable to tax under the Act. It was contended that no tax was applicable in this case, and the petitioner should only be liable for a penalty of ?10,000 under section 122(xiv) of the GGST Act, 2017.

Considering the submissions and documents indicating the transportation of an old Winch Machine for repairs, the Court found merit in the petitioner's argument. It was concluded that the petitioner, at most, would be liable to pay a fine of ?10,000 as per clause (xiv) of section 122 of the GGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the Court issued notice for further proceedings and directed the respondents to release the seized vehicle and goods upon the petitioner depositing ?10,000 with the authorities.

In conclusion, the Court acknowledged the circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the interception was related to the absence of an e-way bill during the transportation of machinery for repairs, not for any taxable supply. The Court's decision focused on the liability of the petitioner for a penalty rather than tax, ensuring the release of the seized vehicle and goods upon compliance with the prescribed fine.