Court orders release of seized goods and vehicle on furnishing security, pending final disposal of the case involving minor e-way bill discrepancy.

Case Name:

M/s. Plus Creation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Court No. 29

Case: Writ Tax No. 1417 of 2018

Key Takeaways:

- The court recognized that a minor discrepancy in the e-way bill should not necessarily lead to the detention of goods and vehicles.

- The court ordered the interim release of the seized goods and vehicle, subject to the petitioner furnishing appropriate security and an indemnity bond.

- The case highlights the need for a balanced approach in enforcing GST laws, considering the circumstances and the nature of the alleged violation.

Issue:

Whether the seized goods and vehicle should be released to the petitioner pending the final disposal of the case, given the alleged minor discrepancy in the e-way bill.

Facts:

The goods and the vehicle carrying the goods of the petitioner (M/S. PLUS CREATION PVT. LTD.) were detained under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A penalty order was also passed on 20.10.2017 pursuant to the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of the goods and vehicle, arguing that the minor discrepancy of incorrectly mentioning some digits of the correct truck number on the e-way bill was not sufficient grounds for detention.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the minor discrepancy in the e-way bill should not warrant the detention of the goods and vehicle. The revenue authorities likely contended that the discrepancy violated the provisions of the GST Act and justified the seizure and penalty.

Key Legal Precedents:

The court did not explicitly cite any legal precedents in the provided text. However, the court's decision was based on the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Sections 129(1) and 129(3) related to the seizure, detention, and confiscation of goods and vehicles.

Judgement:

The court allowed time for the revenue authorities (respondents no. 2 and 3) to file a counter-affidavit within three weeks, and one week thereafter for the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit. The court ordered that, in the meantime, the seized goods and vehicle shall be released to the petitioner upon furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee, along with an indemnity bond for the proposed amount of tax and penalty imposed, provided that the goods have not been confiscated pursuant to the penalty order.

FAQs:

Q1: What was the alleged violation that led to the seizure of goods and vehicle?

A1: The alleged violation was the incorrect mention of some digits of the correct truck number on the e-way bill accompanying the goods.

Q2: Why did the court order the release of the seized goods and vehicle?

A2: The court recognized that the alleged violation was a minor discrepancy and ordered the interim release of the seized goods and vehicle, subject to the petitioner furnishing appropriate security and an indemnity bond.

Q3: What security did the court require the petitioner to furnish for the release of the seized goods and vehicle?

A3: The court ordered the petitioner to furnish security other than cash or bank guarantee, along with an indemnity bond for the proposed amount of tax and penalty imposed.

Q4: What was the next step in the legal proceedings?

A4: The court allowed time for the revenue authorities to file a counter-affidavit and the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit, after which the case would be listed for admission or final disposal.

Q5: Does the court's order imply a final decision on the merits of the case

A5: No, the court's order was an interim measure to release the seized goods and vehicle pending the final disposal of the case. The court did not make a final decision on the merits of the case.

The goods and the vehicle carrying the goods has been detained under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short of the Act) and in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act a penalty order has also been passed on 20.10.2017.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction for release of the goods and the vehicle on the ground that one minor discrepancy of incorrectly mentioning some digits of the correct Truck number on the E-way bill is not sufficient to order for detention of the the goods and the vehicle.

Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3 may file counter, if so desired, within three weeks. One week thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

List for admission/final disposal on the expiry of the above period.

In the meantime the ceased goods and the vehicle shall be released on petitioner's furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee and indemnity bond of the proposed amount of tax and the penalty imposed provided that the goods have not been confiscated pursuant to the penalty order.

Order Date :- 2.11.2018