2022 (10) TMI 133 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - seizure on the ground of vehicle not having an appropriate E-way bill - HELD THAT - While there appeared to be an apparent mistake in the original E-way bill under Annexure-1, i.e. the name of the seller and the buyer had been erroneously swapped and, therefore, the Revenue was justified in not allowing the vehicle to enter into the State and seized the same, yet we find that once the corrected E-way bill under Annexure-3 was produced before the respondents and the apparent error having been corrected, there is no justification in either initiating the present proceedings against the petitioner or in continuing with the seizure of the vehicle along with goods. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the parties are genuine, nor is there any dispute that the original E-way bill contained an error. However, where the error is rectified and a corrected E-way bill is produced, it would be appropriate for the Revenue authorities to act sensibly in the manner and proceed. The authorities are directed to release the vehicle and the goods forthwith - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods due to incorrect E-way bill.
2. Justification for seizure and continuation of proceedings.
3. Role of State Revenue authorities in such cases.
4. Rectification of error in E-way bill and release of goods.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the seizure of goods, specifically 130 drums of Bitumen, during transport from the seller to the buyer due to an incorrect E-way bill. The vehicle was intercepted at a check post, and the seizure was purportedly due to the absence of an appropriate E-way bill.

2. The petitioner argued that the mistake in the E-way bill, where names of the seller and buyer were erroneously swapped, led to the seizure. After rectifying the error and generating a fresh E-way bill, the vehicle remained stranded at the check post. The Revenue authorities justified the seizure due to the initial mistake in the E-way bill.

3. The High Court acknowledged the importance of State Revenue authorities in facilitating economic growth. While errors in documents must be addressed, once a corrected E-way bill was produced, the continued seizure of the vehicle and goods was deemed unjustified. Sensible action by Revenue authorities was emphasized to avoid hindrances to the economy.

4. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the show-cause notice, and directed the immediate release of the vehicle and goods. The judgment highlighted the need for Revenue officers to handle such matters seriously and sensibly to prevent unnecessary disruptions to the flow of goods and vehicles, ensuring smooth economic activities.