2018 (12) TMI 1004 - HC - GST

Detention of goods - discrepancy in e-Way bill - the value of the goods was mentioned as ₹ 388220/- instead of ₹ 3882200 - Held that - If a human error which can be seen on naked eye is detected, such human error cannot be capitalised for penalisation. Normally, this Court could not have persuaded to accept the contention on prima facie value as it is a matter for decision by competent authority and this Court can only order release of the vehicle and goods as against Bank guarantee. On verification, if it is found that the petitioner had paid the IGST in accordance with the value shown in Ext.P4, the vehicle and the goods shall be released to the petitioner on executing a simple bond. However, if it is found that the petitioner had not paid the IGST according to the value shown in Ext.P4, the petitioner's goods and vehicle need be released only on furnishing bank guarantee. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of goods due to discrepancy in e-Way bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner's goods were detained because of a mistake in the e-Way bill. The first e-Way bill mentioned the place of delivery as 'Payhanamthitta' and the value of goods as ?3882200. Subsequently, a corrected e-Way bill was generated with the place of delivery correctly shown as 'Pathanamthitta', but the value of goods was mistakenly mentioned as ?388220 instead of ?3882200. The detention of goods was based on this discrepancy.

The court noted that if a human error that is visible to the naked eye is detected, it should not be used for penalization. While normally the court would only order the release of the goods against a bank guarantee, in this case, the court decided to take a different approach. The court stated that if the petitioner had paid the IGST in accordance with the value shown in the original e-Way bill, the goods should be released to the petitioner.

The court issued orders that upon verification, if it is confirmed that the petitioner had paid the IGST based on the value shown in the original e-Way bill, the vehicle and goods should be released to the petitioner by executing a simple bond. However, if it is found that the IGST was not paid according to the value in the original e-Way bill, then the goods and vehicle should be released only upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.