2018 (4) TMI 1214 - HC - GST

Loader/Tipper Release Authorized: No E-Way Bill Violation Found, Appeal Path Cleared Under Section 107 GST Act

HC ruled in favor of petitioner, directing immediate release of loader/tipper without security. Court found no E-Way Bill violation since requirement was ... Detention and seizure of goods with vehicle - non furnishing of the E-Way Bill immediately at the time of detention - Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act - Held that: - the loader/tipper were duly supported by other documents including temporary registration number ensuring no possibility of evasion of tax, as provided in other matters of the similar nature. The respondent is directed to release the loader/tipper without demanding any security from the petitioner forthwith leaving the order of penalty to be challenged by the petitioner if necessary by means of an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST - petition disposed off. Issues: Detention and seizure under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act, order of penalty under Section 129(3) challenged in writ petition, applicability of E-Way Bill, release of loader/tipper without security.The judgment by the Allahabad High Court dealt with the detention and seizure of a new loader/tipper with temporary registration under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST Act, followed by an order of penalty under Section 129(3), which were challenged in a writ petition. The petitioner argued that the seizure was due to non-furnishing of the E-Way Bill at the time of detention. It was highlighted that the E-Way Bill requirement was effective under Central GST from 1st February, 2018, but was not in place on the date of seizure, even though the State of U.P. had a provision earlier, not applicable to the State of Jharkhand where the journey originated.The Court, considering the circumstances, directed the respondent to release the loader/tipper without demanding any security from the petitioner immediately. This decision was based on the presence of other supporting documents, including the temporary registration number, ensuring no tax evasion possibility. The Court allowed the petitioner to challenge the order of penalty through an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, if deemed necessary. The State counsel was directed to file a reply to the writ petition within three weeks, with an additional two weeks given to the petitioner for filing a rejoinder affidavit.The judgment focused on the timely release of the loader/tipper without security, emphasizing the lack of E-Way Bill requirement at the time of seizure and the presence of supporting documents to prevent tax evasion. It highlighted the importance of following due process and allowing the petitioner to appeal the penalty order if required. The Court's decision aimed to balance the interests of the parties involved while upholding the principles of the U.P. GST Act.