Court clarifies seizure rules for non-production of E-Way Bill under GST Act, emphasizes due process

The court addressed the seizure of goods by GST officers due to non-production of E-Way Bill during transit. It interpreted Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, emphasizing due process before confiscation. The court determined the balance amount needed for releasing the seized goods, directing payment by the petitioner. Admissibility of interim relief was discussed, with goods to be released upon depositing a specified amount. An undertaking for cooperation in case of an unsuccessful petition was required from the writ-applicant. Further proceedings were scheduled for July 24, 2019.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by GST officers during transit due to non-production of E-Way Bill.
2. Interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act.
3. Balance amount required for releasing the seized goods.
4. Admissibility of interim relief and release of goods upon depositing a specified amount.
5. Requirement of an undertaking from the writ-applicant for further cooperation in case of unsuccessful petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the seizure of goods by GST officers during transit when the E-Way Bill was not produced. The petitioner, engaged in the business of betel nuts, was transporting goods from Tamil Nadu to Delhi via Gujarat. The vehicle was intercepted in Gujarat, and the goods were seized due to non-compliance with E-Way Bill requirements.

2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act. Section 129 mandates the issuance of a notice and an opportunity for a hearing before passing an order for detained goods. Section 130 allows for confiscation if there is non-compliance with Section 129. The court highlighted the necessity of following due procedure before resorting to confiscation under Section 130.

3. The court determined the balance amount required for releasing the seized goods. The petitioner had deposited a partial amount, but the authorities claimed a higher sum. The court directed the release of goods upon the payment of the remaining balance by the petitioner.

4. The judgment discusses the admissibility of interim relief and the release of goods upon depositing a specified amount. Citing a previous order, the court directed the authorities to release the goods upon the petitioner depositing the specified balance. The petitioner was instructed to file an undertaking for cooperation in further proceedings.

5. Lastly, the court emphasized the requirement of an undertaking from the writ-applicant for cooperation in case the petition is unsuccessful. The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking within a week, ensuring cooperation in subsequent legal proceedings. The matter was scheduled for further hearing on 24th July 2019, with direct service permitted.

---