High Court summons GST Officer to explain illegal interception and seizure of goods despite E-Way Bill being generated and produced
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2284 (2018) (04) HC
The instant writ was filed by the Petitioner consignor who was aggrieved by the seizure of the goods made by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad.
The Petitioner was a registered dealer having GSTIN situated at Haryana. The consignee was also a registered dealer having valid GSTIN, purchased M.S. Bar (mix size) from consignor. Under the purchase order, the goods were transported from Haryana to Kanpur. The applicable CGST and SGST were duly paid by the petitioner which was clearly reflected from the tax invoice.
The vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur on 01.04.2018 at about 9-30 a.m. by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad and an interception/detention memo was issued on the ground on the ground that the E-Way Bill No. 01 was not available and the physical verification of the goods loaded was fixed on 02.04.2018 for at 11-00 a.m.
The Petitioner submitted that the E-Way Bill No. 01 was however generated on 01.04.2018 at about 09-57 a.m. and was duly produced before the Assistant Commissioner, however, seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act 2017) had been passed on 02.04.2018 at about 8-55 a.m. much before the time fixed for physical verification and inspection of the goods.
It was also submitted that in the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017, it had been wrongly recorded that goods were being transported unauthorisedly without any E-Way Bill No.01. It was pointed out that when E-Way Bill No. 01 was generated on 01.04.2018 at about 09-57 a.m. it did not appeal to reason and logic that the same would not be produced before the authority and the fact to the contrary has wrongly been recorded in order to justify the detention and seizure.
It was further submitted that even though E-Way Bill No. 01 was generated and produced by the petitioner but there was no requirement for the same as the Central Government has suspended the requirement of E-Way Bill No. 01 on 01.02.2018.
However, the Standing Counsel representing the State/respondents had not been able to justify the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court took a note of the fact that despite there being no requirement every day petitions were being filed challenging the interception and seizure made by the authorities for want of E-Way Bill No. 01.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court required Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Kanpur to appear before it to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No. 01 was generated and produced.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
----------- Similar Posts: -----------
