2020 (7) TMI 22 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - amendment in the e-way bill could not be immediately done for the lockdown - HELD THAT - Since we have already issued the notice for examining the challenge as raised by the petitioner, it would be appropriate for fair ends of justice that the respondents shall release the goods and the vehicle, if the petitioner furnished the indemnity bond undertaking clearly that in the event of any adverse order from this court or on issuance of direction to make tax and penalty as imposed by the Superintendent of State Tax (GST), Churaibari Enforcement Wing, the petitioner shall, within seven days, pay the entire amount to the competent authority without raising any further plea. The said indemnity bond be made in favour of the Superintendent of State Tax (GST) Churaibari Enforcement Wing. If the Superintendent of State Tax (GST) Churaibari Enforcement Wing is satisfied that the indemnity bond has been submitted in terms of this order, he shall release the vehicle and goods within three days from the submission of the indemnity bond.

Summary

Issues: Violation of rules regarding e-way bill, detention of goods and vehicle, release of goods and vehicle upon furnishing indemnity bond.

In this case, the petitioner's vehicle faced a mechanical failure during the countrywide lockdown, leading to trans-shipment and delay in amending the e-way bill. Upon reaching the Churaibari check post, the Superintendent of State Tax detained the vehicle for not carrying a proper e-way bill, despite the petitioner amending it later. The Commissioner of Taxes, Govt of Tripura, stated that seized goods can be released upon furnishing a security equivalent to the tax and penalty. The petitioner sought release of goods and vehicle, emphasizing potential harm. The respondents argued that the petitioner violated rules by not producing a valid e-way bill initially. However, the court, after issuing notice, directed the release of goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond. The bond required the petitioner to pay the tax and penalty within seven days if ordered by the court, with release subject to the Superintendent's satisfaction with the bond. This interim order was subject to the final decision of the court.

This judgment primarily deals with the violation of rules related to e-way bills, the detention of goods and vehicle by the tax authorities, and the subsequent release of goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay in amending the e-way bill due to the lockdown should not result in the continued detention of the goods and vehicle. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the detention was justified as the petitioner failed to comply with the e-way bill requirements initially. The court, while acknowledging the potential rule violation by the petitioner, balanced the interests by ordering the release of goods and vehicle upon the petitioner providing an indemnity bond. This bond required the petitioner to promptly pay the tax and penalty if directed by the court, ensuring compliance with the tax authorities' requirements. The court's decision aimed to address the immediate issue of detention while preserving the right to decide on the matter conclusively in the future.