2022 (6) TMI 759 - HC - GST

Detention of petitioner's vehicle alongwith the goods - expired E-way bill - HELD THAT - There will be a direction to the first respondent to complete the adjudication following the detention of goods pursuant to Ext.P4 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In the meantime, the first respondent shall release the goods covered by Ext.P1 and the aforesaid vehicle on the petitioner executing a bond for the value of the goods in FORM GST INS-04 and furnishing security in the form of Bank Guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods and vehicle due to expired E-Way bill, applicability of GST, legality of confiscation under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:

1. Detention of Goods and Vehicle:
The petitioner's vehicle was detained by the first respondent alleging the expiry of the E-Way bill for transporting goods covered by a specific document. The petitioner explained that the E-Way bill had expired due to a breakdown of the vehicle and poor network coverage, preventing revalidation. The petitioner argued that the impugned goods had already undergone applicable GST and should not be subject to confiscation under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the detention of the goods and vehicle was deemed illegal by the petitioner, leading to the filing of a writ petition to quash the relevant orders and seek the release of the goods and vehicle.

2. Court's Direction and Decision:
After hearing both parties, the Court issued a direction to the first respondent to complete the adjudication process concerning the detained goods within one month from the date of the judgment. During this period, the first respondent was instructed to release the goods and the vehicle upon the petitioner executing a bond in FORM GST INS-04 for the goods' value and providing a Bank Guarantee for the applicable tax, interest, and penalty amount. The release was subject to further orders by the first respondent. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring a time-bound resolution of the issue.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in cases involving the detention of goods and vehicles under tax laws. The Court's decision to allow the release of goods upon certain conditions demonstrates a balanced approach aimed at protecting the rights of the petitioner while ensuring compliance with relevant tax regulations.