Seizure of goods justified when e-way bill not generated on movement of goods

Seizure of goods justified when e-way bill was not generated immediately on movement of the goods but was generated after the interception of the goods.

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with detention of goods by GST Authorities as e-way bill not generated on the movement of the goods but was generated after the interception of the goods.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4720 (2025) (08) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the Petitioner/assessee had filed a Writ Petition challenging the detention of the goods by GST Authorities and proceedings under Sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the UPGST Act.

The petitioner assessee was duly registered under the GST Act. The goods were in transit when the same were intercepted. Immediately thereafter, e-way bill was produced.

However, the GST Department seized the goods and proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner. After deposit of tax and penalty, the goods were released.

According to the assessee there was no intention to evade payment of tax, but still the goods were seized. It was submitted that the issue in hand was squarely covered by the judgement of the High Court wherein the seizure order as well as penalty notice issued under Sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings had been set aside.

On the other hand, the Department contended that at the time of interception, no e-way bill was produced, but it was produced subsequently. It was further submitted that the e-way bill was generated after interception of the goods, much after the time of interception by the mobile squad. In support of his submission, the Department placed reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that in the case relied upon by the Petitioner, the

E-way bill was issued at the time of despatch of goods but was downloaded on before the detention of the vehicle.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that it was not in dispute that at the time of interception of the goods, e-way bill was not produced and the same was produced before passing of the seizure order and the penalty order, but it was admitted that the e-way bill was not generated immediately after the movement of the goods and the same was generated much after the interception of the goods, which is evident from the MOV 06.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the issue was covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Court wherein on detention of the vehicle without the requisite e-way bill, the e-way bill was immediately generated. The claim was made that as the e-way bill had been generated before passing of the order therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any deficiency and no penalty can be imposed. The Division Bench rejected the contention and opined that if such plea is accepted, the same would provide a handle to the assesses to generate the e-way bills only in cases where the vehicles are detained and then produce the same before the authority before the notice is issued frustrating the very purpose of the law.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms
• PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work
• CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner
• Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC
• For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated