Illegal Seizure of Goods under GST Act: Court Orders Release, Citing Non-Compliance with E-Way Bill

The High Court held that the seizure of goods under the GST Act was illegal and without jurisdiction due to the non-filling of 'Part B' of the e-way bill for intra-state transportation within 50 km. Relying on a previous court decision and government notifications, the Court directed the release of the seized goods and vehicle, setting aside the seizure order and penalty proceedings. The Court emphasized that the seizure was unjustified, aligning the judgment with precedent and ruling in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
Seizure of goods under GST Act due to non-filling of 'Part B' of e-way bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, challenged the seizure of goods by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, based on the non-filling of 'Part B' of the e-way bill. The petitioner contended that despite consignors preparing invoices with all necessary details and downloading the e-way bill, the vehicle details for transportation from the U.P. godown were not available at the time of filling 'Part B'. The goods were detained solely for this reason, even though they were being transported within a distance of less than 50 km from New Delhi to the U.P. godown for further transportation to Assam and Nagaland. The petitioner argued that as per a Government decision and Notification no.12 of 2018, 'Part B' was not required for such intra-state transactions within 50 km, and relied on a previous court decision setting aside a similar seizure order.

The High Court, considering the facts of the case and the previous court decision, held that the seizure proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. Citing the Government Notification and Central Government decision, the Court directed the release of the seized goods and vehicle, setting aside both the seizure order and the penalty proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The Court emphasized that the seizure was unjustified given the circumstances of the case and the applicable regulations, aligning the judgment with the precedent set in a similar case, thereby allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.

---