2018 (10) TMI 1236 - HC - GST

Detention of goods with vehicle - production of e-way bill - respondent has directed the petitioner to appear and file his reply before him on 28.03.2018 at 11-00 a.m. whereas the impugned seizure order has been passed on 27.03.2018 - Held that - The impugned seizure order cannot sustain in the eyes of law as the same has been passed ignoring the fact that the time and date has been given by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner for appearance and for production of the relevant documents on 28.03.2018, whereas the order has been passed on a day before the date allowed by the respondent no. 2. Also, while passing the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 no time has been mentioned by the respondent no. 2 whereas while issuing notice/detention memo he has specifically mentioned the time. This clearly goes to show the ill intention on the part of the respondent no. 2. The seizure order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as consequential notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act are quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 129(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 regarding seizure of goods for lack of E-Way Bill.
2. Compliance with E-Way Bill requirements for transportation of goods within the State of U.P.
3. Validity of seizure order and notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court, delivered by Mr. Krishna Murari and Mr. Ashok Kumar, JJ., addressed the issues related to the seizure of goods by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 129(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm engaged in trading of tyres and tubes, had purchased goods from Apollo Tyres Ltd. and was transporting them within the State of U.P. to fulfill an order. The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the requirement of an E-Way Bill for intrastate transportation.

The court noted that the petitioner had downloaded the E-Way Bill on the same day the goods were intercepted, and had produced it before the Assistant Commissioner as directed. However, the seizure order was passed prematurely, a day before the scheduled appearance of the petitioner. The court observed that the Assistant Commissioner's actions indicated ill intention, as the order failed to specify a time, unlike the earlier notice which did mention a specific time.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the goods were accompanied by all necessary documents, including the E-Way Bill, and were produced before the Assistant Commissioner within the stipulated time for reply. Consequently, the court held that the seizure order and the consequential notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act were unjust and ordered their quashing. The court directed the immediate release of the goods and the vehicle.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with statutory requirements in cases of goods seizure under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.