2022 (5) TMI 1022 - HC - GST

Seeking release of detained goods and vehicle - generation of second E-way bill - HELD THAT - It is admitted to the parties that the goods in question originated from Panipat and were being transported with valid invoice from Panipat to Nepal but due to restriction imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, as specifically mentioned in paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 27 and 28 of the writ petition, the goods were unloaded at Gorakhpur and after the arrangement of another vehicle was made under prevailing situation of COVID-19 pandemic, the goods were transported to Nepal. Since the time gap was much, therefore, a second e-way bill was generated so that the goods may reach to its destination at Nepal. There is absolutely no dispute that the goods in question were dispatched by the petitioner no.1 from Panipat (Haryana) under valid invoice and valid papers. The goods in question were intercepted and seized by the respondents on hyper-technical ground and assumptions, without there being any allegation of intention to evade payment of tax. The second e-way bill was generated bonafidely and in circumstance beyond control of the petitioners. The averments of the petitioners that generating the second e-way bill was totally bonafide, has also not been denied by the respondents. Since the goods were covered by valid documents, therefore, it could not have been detained or seized and hence the entire proceedings were totally arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The action of the respondents in seizing the goods in question is evidently an act of harassment to the petitioners, breach of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and blatant abuse of power by the respondents. The impugned detention order dated 07.03.2022, the release order dated 13.03.2022 and notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022, are hereby quashed being totally arbitrary and illegal. The goods and vehicle in question seized by the respondents are directed to be released forthwith - the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to each of the petitioners, i.e. total Rs.1,00,000/- which the respondents shall pay the petitioners within four weeks from today.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Detention/Seizure Order dated 07.03.2022.
2. Validity of the Order of Release dated 13.03.2022.
3. Validity of the Notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022.
4. Legality of the seizure and detention of goods and vehicle.
5. Allegation of tax evasion and compliance with e-way bill regulations.
6. Abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention/Seizure Order dated 07.03.2022:
The petitioners challenged the Detention/Seizure Order under Section 20 of the IGST Act read with Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The court noted that the goods were dispatched from Panipat to Nepal with valid invoices and e-way bills. The goods were detained at Gorakhpur due to COVID-19 restrictions, and a second e-way bill was generated for further transportation. The court found no evidence of tax evasion and deemed the detention arbitrary and illegal.

2. Validity of the Order of Release dated 13.03.2022:
The Order of Release under Section 20 of the IGST Act read with Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was also challenged. The court observed that the respondents did not provide a specific denial of the petitioners' claims and found that the goods were detained on hyper-technical grounds without any intention of tax evasion. The court quashed the release order as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Validity of the Notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022:
The petitioners sought to quash the notices issued by respondent no. 3. The court found that the respondents failed to specifically deny the petitioners' claims and that the detention and subsequent notices were based on assumptions without any evidence of tax evasion. The court quashed the notices as arbitrary and illegal.

4. Legality of the seizure and detention of goods and vehicle:
The court examined the circumstances under which the goods were detained and found that the goods were covered by valid documents. The second e-way bill was generated due to unavoidable delays caused by COVID-19 restrictions. The court held that the seizure and detention were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, constituting harassment and abuse of power.

5. Allegation of tax evasion and compliance with e-way bill regulations:
The court noted that the goods were transported with valid invoices and e-way bills. The second e-way bill was generated bonafidely due to delays beyond the petitioners' control. The court found no intention of tax evasion and held that the respondents' actions were based on hyper-technical grounds without any evidence of tax evasion.

6. Abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. vs. M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited & Anr., highlighting the arbitrary and illegal detention of goods and the abuse of power by the respondents. The court emphasized that the respondents' actions violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned detention order dated 07.03.2022, the release order dated 13.03.2022, and the notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022. The court directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on each petitioner, to be paid by the respondents within four weeks.

← Previous Next →