Court Orders Release of Seized Goods Due to Completed E-way Bill Details

Case Name:

New Shiva Transport Service Vs. State of U.P.

Writ Tax No. 905 of 2018

Key Takeaways:

- Completing Part-B of the E-way Bill with vehicle and destination details is crucial for goods transportation.

- Goods should not be seized if the required E-way Bill details are provided, even if done after initial interception.

- Courts may order the release of seized goods on furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee.

Issue:

Was the seizure of goods and vehicle justified when the petitioner provided the required E-way Bill details after the initial interception?

Facts:

- The goods and vehicle of NEW SHIVA TRANSPORT SERVICE were seized on 25.05.2018 under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

- The seizure was due to non-filing of Part-B of the E-way Bill.

- The petitioner supplied the required details (vehicle carrying goods and destination) on 25.05.2018.

- The E-way Bill with complete details was annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4.

Arguments:

Petitioner's Argument:

- The seizure was unjustified as they had supplied the required details for Part-B of the E-way Bill on 25.05.2018.

- The goods were not liable for seizure on 26.05.2018 as the complete details were already provided.

Respondent's Argument:

The judgment doesn't explicitly state the respondent's arguments, but it can be inferred that they justified the seizure based on the initial non-filing of Part-B of the E-way Bill.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment doesn't mention any specific legal precedents. However, it refers to Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which deals with detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.

Judgement:

- The court ordered the release of the seized goods and vehicles in favor of the petitioner.

- The release is conditional upon furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee, equivalent to the proposed tax.

- The court allowed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a month and gave the petitioners two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.

- The case was listed for admission/final disposal after the expiry of the above period.

FAQs:

Q1: What is Part-B of an E-way Bill?

A1: Part-B of an E-way Bill contains details of the vehicle carrying the goods and the destination.

Q2: Can goods be seized if Part-B of the E-way Bill is not initially filed?

A2: While goods can be initially seized, this judgment suggests that if the required details are provided promptly, the goods should be released.

Q3: What kind of security can be furnished for the release of seized goods?

A3: The court ordered security other than cash or bank guarantee, equivalent to the proposed tax.

Q4: Does providing E-way Bill details after interception guarantee immediate release of goods?

A4: Not necessarily. In this case, the court ordered release, but also allowed time for the respondents to file a counter affidavit.

Q5: What is the significance of this judgment for transporters?

A5: It emphasizes the importance of promptly providing complete E-way Bill details and suggests that courts may favor releasing goods if these details are furnished, even if after initial interception.

Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajesh Tripathi, appearing for the respondent no. 2. The goods under transportation along with vehicle were seized vide seizure memo order dated 25.05.2018, under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The submission of Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the seizure is on account of non filing Part-B of E-way Bill.

Part-B of E-Way Bill requires the details of the vehicle carrying the goods and the destination.

The petitioner has supplied and filled the aforesaid details on 25.05.2018 as is implicit from the E-way Bill annexed with Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

In view of the above, as the complete details to be filled up in Part-B of the E-way Bill were supplied on 25.05.2018, the goods were not liable for seizure on 26.05.2018.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents may file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks thereafter is allowed to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.

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

In the meantime, the goods and the vehicles seized vide seizure memo order dated 25.05.2018 shall be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee equivalent to the proposed tax.

Order Date :- 6.6.2018

Sanjeet