Seizure Order Quashed, Goods Released to Petitioner: Transparency & Accuracy Emphasized

The Court quashed the seizure order under Section 129(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, directing the immediate release of the goods and vehicle to the petitioner. The judgment favored the petitioner due to discrepancies in interception timings and procedural shortcomings in preparing seizure memos, emphasizing the need for transparency and accuracy in enforcement actions.

---

---

Issues:
Seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 based on expired e-way bill validity.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in Kanpur, purchased fencing wire from Delhi and faced seizure of goods due to an expired e-way bill. The goods were dispatched with a valid e-way bill but were intercepted in Kanpur after the e-way bill's expiry. The seizure order was issued under Section 129(1) of the Act, citing the expired e-way bill as the reason. The petitioner contended that the seizure was unjust as the e-way bill was valid during interception. The Assistant Commissioner's instructions revealed discrepancies in the timing of interception, with the petitioner claiming the vehicle entered Kanpur before the e-way bill expiry. The lack of a specified time period for preparing seizure memos allowed for delays and incorrect recording of interception times, causing undue harm to the transporter.

The Court noted the discrepancies in the timings provided by the Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner regarding the interception of goods in Kanpur. The petitioner's assertion that the vehicle entered Kanpur before the e-way bill expiry remained unchallenged. The Court highlighted the absence of a prescribed time limit for preparing seizure memos, enabling authorities to delay and inaccurately document interceptions. Due to the unanswered questions regarding the vehicle's entry time and the incorrect recording of interception time, the Court concluded that the seizure based on the expired e-way bill was unjustified.

The Court quashed the seizure order issued under Section 129(1) of the Act and directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle to the petitioner. The judgment favored the petitioner, emphasizing the discrepancies in interception timings and the lack of procedural clarity in preparing seizure memos. The Court's decision aimed to rectify the unjust seizure of goods and highlighted the need for transparency and accuracy in enforcement actions under the Act.

---