Vehicle Detention for E-Way Bill Violation Upheld: Compliance Mandatory with CGST Rules, Release Possible via Bank Guarantee

HC upheld vehicle detention for e-way bill violation, rejecting appellant's challenge. Despite withdrawal of Rule 140 challenge, court directed vehicle release upon furnishing bank guarantee and simple bond as per CGST Rules. The decision emphasized strict compliance with tax regulations and procedural requirements for goods detention and release.

---

---

Issues Involved: Challenge against Rule 140 of CGST/SGST Rules as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution, release of detained vehicle based on e-way bill violation.

Analysis:

1. Challenge against Rule 140: The appellant sought relief in the Writ Petition to declare Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules as violative of Article 301 of the Constitution. The rule required the collection of security in the form of a simple bond for the value of goods and a bank guarantee equivalent to the tax, interest, and penalty for the release of detained goods under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, during the proceedings, the appellant decided to withdraw the challenge against Rule 140 and focused only on the release of the detained vehicle.

2. Detention of Vehicle: The Writ Petition was filed when the vehicle was detained by the Inspecting Team for not uploading Part-B of the e-way bill. The appellant's counsel argued that Part-B was uploaded before the notice and order were issued, but the detention was based on the e-way bill's invalidity due to the missing Part-B. The court noted that the subsequent uploading of Part-B did not rectify the defect pointed out during detention. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge to refuse the release of the vehicle based on the e-way bill violation.

3. Release of Vehicle: Despite withdrawing the challenge against Rule 140, the court directed the release of the vehicle to the appellant upon furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty due, along with a simple bond for the value of the goods as per Rule 140(1) of the CGST Rules. The court's decision on the release of the vehicle was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the provisions of the CGST Act. The Writ Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of challenging Rule 140 of the CGST/SGST Rules and the release of a detained vehicle due to an e-way bill violation. The court's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with tax regulations and the specific requirements for the release of detained goods under the CGST Act, ultimately leading to the direction for the release of the vehicle with the specified conditions.

---