Court Orders Release of Seized Goods on Bank Guarantee in E-Way Bill Dispute

Case Name:

M/s. Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India Thru' Secy. & 3 Others

Writ Tax No. 873 of 2017

Key Takeaways:

- E-Way Bill technical issues can be considered in seizure cases.

- Courts may offer relief if goods are properly accounted for and issues arise from technical problems.

- Bank guarantees can be used as an alternative to holding seized goods.

Issue:

Was the seizure of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act valid when the E-Way Bill couldn't be downloaded due to technical issues?

Facts:

- The petitioner, M/S. Vikram Solar Pvt. Ltd., was transporting goods from West Bengal to Ghaziabad.

- The goods were seized on 16.12.2017 under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act.

- A consequential notice was issued on the same date under Section 129(3) of the Act.

- The seizure was made because the E-Way Bill had not been downloaded.

- The petitioner claimed there was a problem in downloading the E-Way Bill before the seizure.

- The petitioner is engaged in trading P.V. Solar Modules and other accounted-for goods.

Arguments:

The petitioner challenged the seizure order and consequential notice, arguing that the failure to download the E-Way Bill was due to technical issues rather than intentional non-compliance.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment doesn't mention any specific legal precedents. However, it refers to Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, which deal with seizure of goods and issuance of notices in such cases

Judgement:

The court disposed of the writ petition with the following orders:

- The petitioner's vehicle and seized goods may be released forthwith.

- This release is subject to the deposit of a bank guarantee equal to the value of the tax on the goods.

- The court noted that the penalty order had not yet been passed at the time of this judgment

FAQs:

Q1: Why did the court order the release of the goods?

A1: The court considered that there was a technical problem in downloading the E-Way Bill and that the goods were properly accounted for.

Q2: What conditions did the court set for releasing the goods?

A2: The court ordered the release subject to the deposit of a bank guarantee equal to the value of the tax on the goods.

Q3: Does this judgment mean that all seized goods will be released if there's an E-Way Bill issue?

A3: Not necessarily. The court considered multiple factors, including that the goods were accounted for and that a technical issue prevented E-Way Bill download.

Q4: What is an E-Way Bill?

A4: An E-Way Bill is an electronic document required for the movement of goods under the GST system.

Q5: Did the court cancel the seizure order?

A5: The court didn't explicitly cancel the order but provided a way for the goods to be released, effectively mitigating its impact.

Heard Shri R.R. Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the seizure order dated 16.12.2017 passed under Section 129(1) U.P. GST Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as the consequential notice dated 16.12.2017 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act.

The ground for making seizure of goods is that the E-Way Bill had not been downloaded. However, it has come on record that before seizure there was some problem in downloading the E-way bill. The penalty order has not yet been passed. The petitioner is engaged in the trading of P.V. Solar Modules etc., which are all accounted for goods. The goods have been carried from West Bengal to Ghaziabad.

Subject to deposit of bank guarantee, equal to the value of the tax on goods, the petitioner's vehicle and goods which have been seized may be released forthwith.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Order Date : 4.1.2018