Back dated seizure order under GST Act quashed by the High Court as e-Way Bill was downloaded and produced before the Assistant Commissioner before the date fixed for reply
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
BCAUS 2277 (2018) (04) HC
The petitioner was a registered proprietorship firm engaged in trading of various kind of tyres and tubes. The petitionerwas a registered dealer under G.S.T. (Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017) (Act) and was allotted a TIN number by the assessing authority. The petitioner had received a purchase order from a party, which was also registered. In pursuance of the purchase order received, the consignment was booked by the petitioner for transportation within two districts the State.
Though the requisite documents were accompanied during the course of movements of the goods, the Assistant Commissioner (AC) Incharge of Mobile Squad intercepted the goods on 27.03.2018 and issued a notice/detention memo under Section 129(1) of the Act.
In the said notice, while mentioning the date the AC had also mentioned time being 7:30 a.m. The petitioner was directed to appear before him next date at 11:00 a.m. in his office.
According to the petitioner, he was not aware about the requirement of E-Way Bill for the purposes of transportation of goods from one place to another place within the State. However, he down loaded the E-Way Bill on 27.03.2018 from the official department portal on 27.03.2018 at 9:39 p.m.
The said E-Way Bill has been duly produced by the petitioner before the AC. However, as alleged by the Petitioner, the AC illegally passed the impugned seizure order ignoring the relevant fact that he himself has directed the petitioner to appear and file his reply before him on 28.03.2018 at 11-00 a.m. whereas the impugned seizure order had been passed ostensibly on 27.03.2018, hence the petitioner challenged it as illegal and liable to be quashed.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the impugned seizure order could not sustain in the eyes of law as the same had been passed ignoring the fact that the time and date had been given by the AC to the petitioner for appearance and for production of the relevant documents on 28.03.2018, whereas the order had been passed on a day before the date allowed.
The Hon’ble High Court also noticed that while passing the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 no time had been mentioned by the AC whereas while issuing notice/detention memo he had specifically mentioned the time. This clearly showed the ill intention on the part of the AC.
The Hon’ble High Court found that the goods were transported from one place to another within the State and were accompanied by the requisite documents and requisite E-Way Bill had also been produced by the petitioner before the AC before the date fixed for reply.
Considering the aforesaid fact, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the seizure order as well as consequential notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act.
