GST seizure unjustified where handwritten e-way bill vehicle change after transshipment was a practical necessity

GST seizure of goods and vehicle was found unjustified where the e-way bill showed the movement of goods, the second vehicle number was handwritten after transshipment at Chandigarh, and the petitioner explained the transport constraints. The Court treated the handwritten entry as a practical necessity because the portal did not permit entry of two vehicle numbers for one transaction, and found no irregularity attributable to the petitioner or the transport company. It also noted that any tax shortfall, if due, could be recovered in accordance with law after due opportunity of hearing. The seized goods and vehicle were directed to be released forthwith.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the goods and vehicle and the insistence on bank guarantee for release were justified when the e-way bill carried the second vehicle number by hand after transshipment at Chandigarh and the petitioner explained the circumstances.

Analysis: The petitioner established that the goods originated in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, were first moved under the e-way bill, and were thereafter reloaded in another vehicle at Chandigarh because of the transport conditions prevailing in that area. The handwritten entry of the subsequent vehicle number was treated as a practical necessity arising from the portal not permitting entry of two vehicle numbers for one transaction. The Court found no irregularity attributable to the petitioner or the transport company. It also noted that if there was any tax shortfall, the GST authority could recover it in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The seizure was not justified and the seized goods and vehicle were directed to be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner.

---