2021 (4) TMI 272 - HC - GST

Seeking release of detained goods alongwith the truck - invalid documents or not - in the challan, E-way bill number and Eff. was not mentioned - HELD THAT - It is necessary to state that Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, provides for confiscation of vehicle or conveyance found to be carrying goods without E-way bill. As noticed, the confiscation proceeding was not initiated under Section 130 of the S.G.S.T. Act rather the proceeding has been initiated under Section 6-A(c) of the E.C. Act. It is not disputed that 160 drums of bitumen, which were being transported on the aforesaid truck, were ordered to be released as the documents relating to purchase of bitumen were found to be valid and genuine. Till date no order has been passed in the aforesaid confiscation proceeding and the truck is lying under the open sky in an uncared manner in the premises of the police station. The truck is exposed to the vagaries of weather and over a period of time the vehicle will be damaged and become a junk. It is well settled that detention of commercial vehicle for a long period in the premises of the police station will not serve any purpose, as it will not only cause loss to the owner but also cause a loss of revenue to the State Exchequer due to non-pliance of the commercial vehicle. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application, along with relevant documents, in the court below - Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of truck under the Essential Commodities Act
2. Validity of confiscation proceeding initiated by Deputy Commissioner
3. Jurisdiction of the court for release of vehicle or goods
4. Detention of vehicle in police station premises
5. Procedure for release of the truck

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of truck under the Essential Commodities Act
The revision was filed against the order rejecting the release of a truck in connection with a criminal case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner argued that the confiscation of the truck was in contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as the specific order violated was not mentioned in the FIR. The court noted that the confiscation was based on the absence of valid documents for transportation, specifically the E-way bill number and Eff., and initiated by the Deputy Commissioner.

Issue 2: Validity of confiscation proceeding initiated by Deputy Commissioner
The Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the release of the truck, citing that the confiscation proceeding was initiated under Section 6-A(c) of the Essential Commodities Act. It was emphasized that the petitioner should raise defense points before the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, as per Section 6-E of the Act, which bars the court's jurisdiction for release in such cases.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the court for release of vehicle or goods
The court highlighted that the confiscation proceeding was not under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act but under the Essential Commodities Act. It emphasized the need for the competent authority to determine if the confiscation under Section 6-A(c) was justified without any violation of state orders or notifications.

Issue 4: Detention of vehicle in police station premises
Concern was raised about the prolonged detention of the truck in the police station premises, exposing it to damage over time. It was noted that such detention serves no purpose and causes losses to the owner and the state revenue due to non-compliance with commercial vehicle regulations.

Issue 5: Procedure for release of the truck
The court allowed the petitioner to file an application in the lower court with relevant documents. If found in order, the truck could be released on an indemnity bond with specified conditions. The court directed the preparation of a panchnama and photographs of the vehicle before release, with the imposition of additional terms as deemed fit.

In conclusion, the court set aside the previous order and allowed the revision while clarifying that the Deputy Commissioner could continue with the confiscation proceeding independently. The petitioner was directed to participate in the proceeding without prejudice from the court's release order.