High Court orders release of seized tobacco goods on bond under GST Rule 140

Case Name:

M/s. Meenu Traders vs. Union of India

Court No. 35

Case: Writ Tax No. 58 of 2018

Key Takeaways:

- Goods can be released on furnishing a bond under Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017.

- Absence of a Transit Declaration Form can lead to seizure of goods.

- E-way Bill alone may not be sufficient for interstate transportation of goods.

Issue:

Whether the seized goods and vehicle should be released when the only allegation is the absence of a Transit Declaration Form, despite the presence of an E-way Bill?

Facts:

- M/S. Meenu Traders was transporting tobacco from Delhi to Rajasthan.

- The goods were intercepted and seized in Ghaziabad.

- The petitioner had an E-way Bill from the State of Rajasthan.

- The goods were seized because the Transit Declaration Form was not available with the transporter.

- No other violations of the Act were alleged.

Arguments:

Petitioner's argument:

They had a valid E-way Bill for the goods being transported.

No penalty order had been passed against them.

Respondent's argument:

The Transit Declaration Form was not available with the transporter, which led to the seizure.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment doesn't mention any specific legal precedents. However, it refers to Rule 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which provides for the release of seized goods on furnishing a bond.

Judgement:

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

- The seized goods and Vehicle No. RJ34 GA1568 should be released forthwith.

- The release is subject to the petitioner depositing security in the form of an indemnity bond as provided under Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017.

- The indemnity bond provided by the petitioner shall abide by the final order to be passed in the penalty proceedings.

- No costs were imposed.

- The order was dated 24.1.2018.

FAQs:

Q1: What was the main reason for seizing the goods?

A1: The main reason was the absence of a Transit Declaration Form.

Q2: Was having an E-way Bill sufficient for transporting the goods?

A2: No, in this case, having an E-way Bill alone was not sufficient. A Transit Declaration Form was also required.

Q3: What is Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, 2017?

A3: Rule 140 provides for the release of seized goods and vehicles upon furnishing a bond and security.

Q4: Did the court impose any penalty on the petitioner?

A4: No, the court didn't impose any penalty. However, it mentioned that the bond would be subject to the final order in penalty proceedings.

Q5: Can the goods be transported after release?

A5: The judgment doesn't specify this. It's advisable to ensure all necessary documents, including the Transit Declaration Form, are in order before transporting the goods.

The instructions have been received by the learned Standing Counsel. No penalty order has been passed against the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that it was carrying goods in the nature of Tobacco from Delhi to Rajasthan and when the goods were seized the petitioner was able to present the E-Way Bill from the State of Rajasthan.

The only allegation for seizure of the goods at Ghaziabad is that the Transit Declaration Form was not there. Other than that no violation of the provisions of the Act have been alleged.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that subject to deposit of security in the shape of indemnity bond as provided under Rule 140, the seized goods and the Vehicle No.RJ34 GA1568 of the petitioner may be released forthwith. The indemnity bond as provided by the petitioner shall abide by the final order to be passed in the penalty proceedings.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Order Date : 24.1.2018