2018 (5) TMI 75 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods with vehicle - stock transfer - sole ground for seizing the goods and vehicle is taken by the respondent no. 3 that the E-Way Bills -01 relating to the petitioner, the vehicle numbers are hand written whereas E-Way Bill -01 was not used in respect of other goods which is allegedly not related to the petitioner - Held that - We find no irregularity at the hands of the petitioner or the transport company and in such peculiar circumstances the petitioner has no option but to mention the details of the subsequent vehicle by hand - the tax has been charged while issuing the stock transfer invoices at the prescribed rate - respondent are directed to release the goods with vehicle - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against seizure order and notice under UPGST Act, 2017 due to handwritten vehicle numbers on E-Way Bills.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing medicines and mineral water, challenged a seizure order and notice issued under the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's registered office is in Chandigarh with a branch office in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. Goods were transferred against stock transfer invoices after paying IGST and transported from Himanchal Pradesh to Chandigarh, and then to Gorakhpur using different vehicles due to transport union restrictions. The petitioner generated E-Way Bills for all transactions but faced portal limitations in mentioning two vehicle numbers for one transaction, resulting in handwritten details on E-Way Bills. Despite explanations and relevant documents, the respondent seized goods and vehicle citing handwritten vehicle numbers on E-Way Bills.

The High Court noted the transport union's restrictions in Himanchal Pradesh, leading to goods being reloaded onto different vehicles at Chandigarh for onward transportation. Due to portal limitations, the petitioner had to handwrite vehicle details on E-Way Bills for the subsequent vehicle. No irregularity was found on the petitioner's or transport company's part. The tax was charged correctly on stock transfer invoices, and any tax shortfall could be collected by GST Authority after providing a hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to release the seized goods and vehicle to the petitioner immediately.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the peculiar circumstances faced by the petitioner due to transport union restrictions and portal limitations. The Court upheld the petitioner's actions as lawful and directed the release of seized goods and vehicle, ensuring compliance with tax regulations.