9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1139 - HC - GSTRelease of detained vehicle with goods - invalid e-way bill - collection of security in the form of simple bond for the value of the goods and bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty - Held that - The defect found was that the intercepted vehicle was carrying an invalid e-way bill. The document was categorised as invalid for reason of Part-B of the bill having not been uploaded and not accompanying the goods. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that Part-B was uploaded even before the notice and order, on 10.09.2018. The detention itself was on 09.09.2018 and the subsequent uploading of the Part-B would not efface the defect as pointed out by the Detaining Officer. The vehicle with the goods directed to be released to the appellant on furnishing a bank guarantee for tax and penalty found due and a simple bond without sureties for the value of the goods in the form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules - petition disposed off.
Issues Involved: Challenge against Rule 140 of CGST/SGST Rules as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution, release of detained vehicle based on e-way bill violation.
Analysis: 1. Challenge against Rule 140: The appellant sought relief in the Writ Petition to declare Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The rule required the collection of security in the form of a simple bond for the value of goods and a bank guarantee equivalent to the tax, interest, and penalty for the release of detained goods under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, during the proceedings, the appellant decided to withdraw the challenge against Rule 140 and focused only on the release of the detained vehicle. 2. Detention of Vehicle: The Writ Petition was filed when the vehicle was detained by the Inspecting Team for not uploading Part-B of the e-way bill. The appellant's counsel argued that Part-B was uploaded before the notice and order were issued, but the detention was based on the e-way bill's invalidity due to the missing Part-B. The court noted that the subsequent uploading of Part-B did not rectify the defect pointed out during detention. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to refuse the release of the vehicle based on the e-way bill violation. 3. Release of Vehicle: Despite withdrawing the challenge against Rule 140, the court directed the release of the vehicle to the appellant upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty due, along with a simple bond for the value of the goods as per Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules. The court's decision on the release of the vehicle was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the provisions of the CGST Act. The Writ Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of challenging Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules and the release of a detained vehicle due to an e-way bill violation. The court's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with tax regulations and the specific requirements for the release of detained goods under the CGST Act, ultimately leading to the direction for the release of the vehicle with the specified conditions.
|
