2022 (3) TMI 742 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - the E-Way Bill already taken had expired - HELD THAT - A show cause notice was issued and hence it should be faced by the petitioner by giving a reply and to appear before the Revenue and whatever defence he wants to take, he can take before the concerned authority of the Tax Department. Without taking the said route in replying to the show cause notice and cooperating with the Revenue for completing the adjudication proceedings, the petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the very show cause notice itself along with the detention order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to or impressed with the grounds raised by the petitioner to have a successful challenge against the impugned proceedings. The impugned detention order as well as the show cause notice are tenable. Therefore, the same do not require any interference of this Court - it is open to the petitioner to give a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 15,80,246/- being the proposed penalty against the petitioner and if such bank guarantee is given by the petitioner, after accepting the same, the respondent Revenue can release the goods in question forthwith - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to detention order and show cause notice regarding expired E-Way Bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner's goods, pure lead, were transported with an expired E-Way Bill, leading to interception by tax authorities. The detention order was issued on the grounds of lack of valid documentation, specifically the expired E-Way Bill. The petitioner argued that due to COVID-19, the transportation delay caused the E-Way Bill to expire, not due to lack of proper documentation. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, emphasized the necessity of valid documents during transportation and justified the detention based on the absence of a valid E-Way Bill. The respondent also highlighted the petitioner's lack of cooperation in responding to the show cause notice and attending the personal hearing, indicating non-compliance with the adjudication process.

After considering both parties' arguments, the Court acknowledged the lack of a valid E-Way Bill during transportation, leading to the detention order and the subsequent show cause notice. The Court emphasized the petitioner's obligation to cooperate with the Revenue for adjudication proceedings instead of directly challenging the notice in court. The petitioner later expressed willingness to provide a bank guarantee for the proposed penalty amount during the ongoing adjudication process to release the goods. The Court disposed of the writ petition, upholding the detention order and show cause notice's validity, while allowing the petitioner to provide a bank guarantee for the penalty amount to release the goods and continue with the adjudication process, emphasizing cooperation during the proceedings and final decision based on the adjudication outcome.

In conclusion, the Court maintained the validity of the detention order and show cause notice, emphasizing the need for cooperation in the adjudication process. The petitioner was given the option to provide a bank guarantee for the penalty amount to release the goods and continue with the proceedings, with final decisions to be made based on the adjudication outcome.