Court rules: Minor procedural lapses don't justify goods seizure under GST Act

Case Name:

M/s. Axpress Logistics India (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India & 3 Others

Key Takeaways:

1. Mere procedural infractions do not warrant the seizure of goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. The presence of an e-way bill, even if downloaded just before detention, is sufficient to prevent seizure.

3. Courts may order the provisional release of goods if proper documentation is provided, even after initial seizure.

Issue:

Does the failure to present an e-way bill at the time of interception justify the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, even if the e-way bill was downloaded prior to the detention?

Facts:

1. The petitioner, M/S. Axpress Logistics India (P.) Ltd., was transporting goods from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre in Lucknow.

2. The goods began their journey on 24.03.2018.

3. The shipment was intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 at Kanpur.

4. The goods were seized under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act, allegedly for not being accompanied by an e-way bill-01.

5. The petitioner had downloaded the e-way bill on 28.03.2018, before the detention of the vehicle.

Arguments:

Petitioner's Argument:

- The e-way bill was issued on 24.03.2018 under the CGST Act.

- The e-way bill-01 was downloaded on 28.03.2018, before the detention of the vehicle.

- All necessary information was disclosed in the e-way bill.

Respondent's Argument:

- The goods were not accompanied by the e-way bill-01 at the time of interception.

Judgement:

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the release of the goods on a provisional basis. The key points of the judgment are:

1. The e-way bill under the UPGST Act was downloaded by the petitioner before the detention and seizure of the goods and vehicle.

2. All necessary information was disclosed in the e-way bill.

3. The seizure order and penalty issued under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, were deemed to be deleted.

4. The appeal was dismissed, effectively ruling in favor of the petitioner.

FAQs:

Q1: What is an e-way bill?

A1: An e-way bill is an electronic document required for the transportation of goods under the GST system.

Q2: Is it necessary to carry a physical copy of the e-way bill during transportation?

A2: While it's advisable to have a physical copy, this case suggests that having downloaded the e-way bill before detention might be sufficient.

Q3: Can goods be seized if the e-way bill is not presented immediately during interception?

A3: Based on this judgment, if the e-way bill was generated before the detention, even if not immediately presented, it may not justify seizure.

Q4: What does "provisional release of goods" mean?

A4: It means the goods are released temporarily, pending final decision or fulfillment of certain conditions.

Q5: Does this judgment set a precedent for similar cases?

A5: While each case is unique, this judgment could influence similar cases where minor procedural lapses are involved in goods transportation under GST.

Heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari for respondent no. 1 and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.

The goods were being booked and transported from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 24.03.2018 to be delivered at Lucknow and in between, the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at Kanpur. The objection of respondent no. 4 while detaining the goods was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill-01.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the E-way bill, which has been issued on 24.03.2018 under the CGST as well as E-way bill-01, which has been downloaded on 28.03.2018 before the detention of the vehicle. The goods are ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act.

We have perused the relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition and found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the

petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no irregularity in the present transaction and, therefore, the seizure order as well as penalty notice dated 28.03.2018 issued under Sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings are hereby set aside.

Writ petition stands allowed.

The goods and vehicle seized on 28.03.2018 be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith.

Order Date :- 9.4.2018