2018 (10) TMI 1190 - HC - GST

Detention of vehicle with goods - e-way bill had expired - Section 129 of the SGST Act - After generating that bill, it had the goods loaded into a transport vehicle. But it could not transport them during night hours. The next day, 2nd October, was a holiday. So it could transport the goods only on 3.10.2018 at 10.40 am. - Held that - The writ petition disposed off settting aside the Ext. P10 - the petitioner can approach the ASTO tomorrow - On the petitioners approach, the authority will reexamine the issue, keeping in view the petitioner s Ext.P9 explanation and the other materials, and pass orders on the same day - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods under Section 129 of the SGST Act due to expired e-way bill.
2. Compliance with Rule 140 of the CGST Rules for interim custody of goods.
3. Challenge to Rule 140 of the CGST/SCST Rules violating Article 301 of the Constitution.
4. Judicial intervention in statutory conditions.
5. Government's proposal to set aside the detention order and remand the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a GST dealer claiming to manufacture and export readymade garments, faced detention of goods on 03.10.2018 under Section 129 of the SGST Act due to an expired e-way bill. The authorities demanded tax and penalty, citing the expired e-way bill as the cause for detention.

2. To have interim custody of the goods pending adjudication, the petitioner was required to comply with Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, which necessitated providing a bank guarantee and a simple bond for the tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner challenged this detention by filing a writ petition.

3. The petitioner's counsel contended that the delay in transportation was minimal and due to unavoidable circumstances. He argued that the authorities should take a pragmatic view, especially considering the complexities of the new GST regime. Additionally, a challenge was raised against Rule 140 of the CGST/SCST Rules, alleging a violation of Article 301 of the Constitution.

4. On the other hand, the respondent authorities emphasized the statutory provisions, including Rule 138(10) of the KGST Act, allowing for time extension and reloading of the e-way bill. They opposed judicial intervention, highlighting the importance of upholding statutory conditions to prevent tax evasion.

5. The Government Pleader suggested setting aside the detention order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO). The petitioner's counsel agreed to this proposal, and the Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, allowing the petitioner to approach the ASTO for reexamination of the issue based on the petitioner's explanation and other relevant materials.