2022 (6) TMI 605 - HC - GST

Detention/seizure of vehicle alongwith the goods - it is alleged that the goods were being re-routed without proper e-way bill - Section 129 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - In law and on the clear language of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act), the impugned retention of the vehicle is clearly invalid. The provisions of Section 129 provide for the detention and seizure of the vehicle and contents upon condition that an order of detention/seizure shall be passed at the time of detention/seizure, and duly served upon the person transporting the goods. In the present case, Mr.Prasanth, on instructions, confirms that no such order of detention has been issued and consequently the question of service upon the petitioner does not arise. That apart, the provisions of Section 129 (3) require the proper officer detaining or seizing the goods to issue a notice specifying the penalty payable and thereafter pass an order within 7 days from the date of service of the notice in relation to the detention/seizure effected - In the present case, admittedly, no such notice has been issued till date though the seizure has been effected as early as on 30.05.2022 - In the aforesaid circumstances, the act of the respondent in insisting that the petitioner retain the vehicle at the present location is in gross contravention of the statutory provisions. Writ petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding detention and seizure of goods without proper legal procedures.

Analysis:

The petitioner had purchased iron scrap and was transporting it when the vehicle carrying the consignment faced mechanical difficulty, leading to a deviation from the planned route. Subsequently, the vehicle was intercepted by the Deputy Tax Officer, who alleged that the goods were being re-routed without a proper e-way bill. However, the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the adverse statement made by the driver, which formed the basis of the interception.

The judgment highlighted the provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which govern the detention and seizure of goods during transportation. It was noted that the impugned retention of the vehicle was invalid as no order of detention had been issued at the time of seizure, as required by law. Additionally, the proper officer had not issued a notice specifying the penalty payable within 7 days of the seizure, further violating statutory provisions.

The court found that the respondent's insistence on retaining the vehicle without following the legal procedures outlined in Section 129 was a clear contravention of the statutory provisions. Consequently, the petitioner was deemed to have succeeded in the case, and the relief sought was granted. The court ordered the release of the conveyance and goods contained therein within 24 hours, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures in such matters.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the court issued a mandamus to release the vehicle and goods, emphasizing the necessity of following the prescribed legal procedures in cases of detention and seizure of goods during transportation.