2021 (2) TMI 241 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - no E-way bill with the driver for the transit of the goods from Zundal to Changodar - HELD THAT - We should not interfere at the stage of investigation, which is in progress. We expect the writ applicant to participate and cooperate in the investigation initiated by the respondents. However, with a view to balance the equities, we intend to pass an interim order releasing the goods and the vehicle upon the writ applicant making deposit of the amount towards the tax and penalty i.e. ₹ 2,28,332/. Accordingly, we direct the respondent No.2 to release the goods and the vehicle upon deposit of ₹ 2,28,332/at the earliest. Post this matter on 10.03.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged contravention of provisions of Act and Rules, 2017 regarding confiscation of goods.
2. Discrepancies in Eway bill for transit of goods.
3. Request for provisional release of goods upon deposit of tax and penalty.
4. Balance of equities in investigation stage.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involved a case where the respondent issued a notice to the writ applicant under Section 130 of the Act, 2017, calling for a show cause as to why the goods and conveyance should not be confiscated. The respondent alleged contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules, 2017, specifically related to the lack of an Eway bill for the transit of goods from one location to another.

2. The respondent pointed out discrepancies in the Eway bill, where the pincode mentioned did not match the actual dispatch location of the goods. The driver's statement confirmed the transit of goods, but the absence of a proper Eway bill led to the detention of the goods and vehicle. The investigation was ongoing to ascertain further details and validate the compliance with regulations.

3. The writ applicant, through their counsel, acknowledged the error in the Eway bill regarding the pincode but asserted that the invoice and Eway bill were otherwise accurate concerning the quantity and value of the goods. The applicant requested provisional release of the goods upon deposit of tax and penalty, indicating a liability of &8377;2,28,332. The court considered this request in light of the ongoing investigation.

4. The court decided not to interfere with the investigation process but aimed to balance the equities by passing an interim order for the release of goods and the vehicle upon the applicant's deposit of the tax and penalty amount. This decision was made to ensure fairness while allowing the investigation to proceed. The respondent was directed to release the goods and vehicle upon the deposit of &8377;2,28,332 and the matter was scheduled for further hearing on 10.03.2021. The learned AGP was tasked with updating the court on any developments in the investigation.