2022 (12) TMI 765 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - it is alleged that the goods transported were not accompanied by documents - HELD THAT - In the normal circumstances, the sequitur would have been the writ petition would have become infructuous but the order came to be made when the writ petition was being actively heard by this Court. However, to be fair to the respondent it should be recorded that Section 129(3) prescribes a time line of seven days from the date of service of notice specifying the penalty payable. Such notice was served on writ petitioner on 02.12.2022 and therefore, the order came to be made yesterday. As a one off case, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case and the trajectory the hearing has taken, making it clear that this order will not serve as a precedent, writ petitioner is permitted to move an amendment application inter-alia to assail 08.12.2022 order made by the respondent - List on Monday in the Admission Board i.e., 12.12.2022.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned proceedings under GST Acts.
2. Interpretation of e-way bill validity under GST Rules.
3. Authority of owner vs. transporter in legal proceedings.
4. Application of previous court orders and legal principles.
5. Timelines for penalty imposition under GST laws.
6. Permission for amendment application in ongoing legal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged proceedings dated 02.12.2022 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. The impugned proceedings detained a truck for an expired e-way bill during transportation of consignment, leading to legal scrutiny.

2. The petitioner argued that under GST Rules, specifically Rule 138, the e-way bill's validity could be extended within 8 hours of expiry. The petitioner contended that at the time of interception, there were still 4 hours left for the e-way bill's extension, but due to portal issues, the extension could not be completed.

3. The Revenue counsel highlighted a previous court order emphasizing the owner's presence in legal matters related to transported goods, not just the transporter. However, the court differentiated the cited order based on factual distinctions and referred to the Padma Sundara Rao case law emphasizing the importance of factual analysis in legal decisions.

4. Considering the ongoing hearing and penalty imposition timelines under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, the court acknowledged the respondent's recent penalty order of Rs.6,76,764 but allowed the petitioner to amend the application to challenge the latest order, ensuring fairness in the legal process.

5. The court noted the seven-day timeline for penalty imposition from the date of notice under Section 129(3) and justified the recent penalty order based on the service date of the notice. The court's decision to permit an amendment application was a one-off case based on unique circumstances and not intended as a legal precedent.

6. In conclusion, the court scheduled further proceedings for the case on 12.12.2022, allowing the petitioner to amend the application to challenge the recent penalty order while maintaining the integrity of the legal process and timelines under the relevant GST laws.