2021 (7) TMI 128 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - detention of goods on the ground that out of the two e-way bills generated by the petitioner validity of one of them had expired - intent to evade was present or not? - Case of petitioner is that detention of such goods at the border check post under unprotected conditions would damage the goods as the product is perishable - HELD THAT - The consignee has paid the full tax of ₹ 1,78,283/- on the value of the goods. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner it is held that further continued detention of the vehicle and the goods would serve no purpose. Let the vehicle with the goods be released on certain terms and conditions. While permitting the GST authorities to carry on assessment if the competent authority is of the opinion that there has been any infraction of any rules, regulations or statutory requirement. However, pending such adjudication the goods and the vehicle may be released. The petitioner shall either deposit or give Bank guarantee to the tune of 25% of possible duty with penalty. For such purpose, respondent No.3 shall convey to the petitioner within 2(two) days from today the possible amount of duty with penalty that may ultimately be imposed even if the petitioner s explanations are not accepted - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods due to expired e-way bill validity.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, had goods detained by State GST authorities at the border due to one of the e-way bills' expiry. The petitioner's vehicle broke down, causing a delay in reaching the State border. Despite generating a fresh e-way bill with extended validity, the authorities detained the goods and the vehicle. The petitioner emphasized no intention to evade duty, as the consignee had already paid the full tax. The goods, identified as perishable Amul Butter, were at risk of damage in unprotected conditions. The High Court considered the submissions and decided that the continued detention served no purpose. They ordered the release of the vehicle and goods under certain terms and conditions.

The High Court directed the petitioner to either deposit or provide a bank guarantee for 25% of the possible duty with a penalty. The authorities were to inform the petitioner of the potential duty and penalty within two days. The petitioner was also required to furnish a bond for the remaining probable duty and penalty. Upon fulfilling these conditions, the vehicle and goods were to be released. The competent authority was permitted to proceed with adjudication regarding any unpaid duty, interest, or penalty. The petitioner was obligated to cooperate if a show cause notice was issued by the competent authority.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of, with the High Court permitting direct service of the order copy to the respondent. Any pending applications were also considered disposed of.