Failure to download part-B of E-way bill might be human error-High Court orders release of seized goods and vehicle without penalty

Failure to download part-B of E-way bill might be human error-High Court orders release of seized goods and vehicle without penalty

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2450 (2018) 08 HC

The Petitioner assessee was aggrieved by the seizure of goods under the provisions of UP GST Act for the reason that

The contention of the petitioner was that the entire seizure proceedings was invalid and without authority of law. The petitioner had placed reliance on Government Orders and forms which were necessary to be used while taking the seizure proceedings including the detention of the vehicle. It was submitted that it was an Inter-State transaction, therefore, the entire proceedings carried out under UP GST Act, by seizing authority, was illegal.

It was further submitted that the impugned order though appellable under Section 112 of the CGST Act, before the Tribunal, but since the Tribunal had not been not constituted so far, even after a lapse of more than one and half year, he had no option but to challenge the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that it might be just an human error on the part of the transporter or the person in charge of the vehicle that the requisite part-B of E-way bill was not downloaded while admittedly the E-way bill was downloaded correctly.

It was further observed that the day and the time, when the vehicle in question was detained, the tax invoice and other documents accompanying the goods were produced by the person in charge/driver of the vehicle. The explanation was given by the driver that he was not aware about the required procedure that part-B of the E-way bill was also to be downloaded. However he has downloaded the same and placed it on the same day. However, the detaining authority proceeded to seize the goods and to issue a notice under Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act.

It was further observed that the petitioner had furnished the reply to the show cause notice and explained therein that he was neither any ill intention nor the goods are meant for sale within the State of U.P. as such the goods are meant for to be supplied to the Medical Colleges, situated at Madhya Pradesh and all the details were duly incorporated in the documents, no discrepancy was noticed nor was found by the detaining authority while proceeded to pass the order under Section 129 (3) of the Act, asking the petitioner to pay additional amount plus a penalty for releasing of the seized goods and vehicles in question.

The Hon’ble High Court, in view of the fact that the petitioner was a registered company and the purchaser was a Government of India Enterprise, passed the following orders:-

1. The goods are directed to be released on furnishing an indemnity bond to the extent of the value of tax only and not the penalty amount, so as indicated in the impugned seizure order passed under Section 129(3).

2. The goods seized along with vehicle be released forthwith.

3. The petitioner be permitted to download a fresh E-way bill immediately after release of the goods and vehicle.

4. The goods and vehicle be allowed to proceed to its onward journey and after delivery of the goods, the petitioner must furnish the certificate, as required under the law, showing the delivery of the goods at the purchaser’s place.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------


  1. Manoj gupta September 26, 2018
    • administrator September 26, 2018

Leave a Reply