2021 (3) TMI 429 - HC - GST

Release of seized vehicle alongwith the goods - valid E-way bill not present - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that at the time of interception, the vehicle was not having valid e-way bill. Thus the said vehicle is detained and proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017 are going on. The notice at Ext.P3, mentioning the discrepancies, is served on the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to appear and making his stand before the authorities - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of detention of vehicle due to expired e-way bill.
2. Interpretation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules regarding necessary documents for transportation of goods.
3. Applicability of judgment in W.P.(C). No.17379 of 2020 on the present case.
4. Consideration of Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017 in detaining the vehicle.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for the release of a detained vehicle with registration number KL-04-AM-4076, citing a breakdown that delayed the journey despite the generation of an e-way bill for supplying goods to Idukki district. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to the breakdown, and the journey commenced within the statutory time limit of the e-way bill. On the other hand, the Government Pleader referred to Rule 138 of the GST Rules, emphasizing the necessity of valid documents, including the e-way bill, for transportation of goods. The Government Pleader pointed out that the expired e-way bill was not renewed, leading to the vehicle's detention on 20.01.2021. Additionally, reference was made to a previous judgment of the Court regarding the issuance of GST MOV-06 Form and the Court's limited interference in such matters.

The Court acknowledged that the vehicle did not have a valid e-way bill at the time of interception, resulting in its detention under Section 129 of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner was served a notice detailing the discrepancies. The Court held that the petitioner must appear before the authorities to present their case and address the issues raised in the notice. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioner to resolve the matter through the appropriate legal channels.