Court rules in favor of petitioner on e-way bill issue, orders release of seized vehicle and goods

The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the interception of the vehicle transporting machinery without an e-way bill was related to job-work, not taxable supply. The petitioner was directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 122(xiv) of the GGST Act, 2017, and upon depositing the fine, the seized vehicle and goods were to be released by the authorities.

---

---

Issues:
Interception of vehicle transporting machinery without e-way bill under GGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner had a work order for job-work involving a Winch Machine transported to Nirma Ltd. for repairs. The machine was taken back to the petitioner's premises for repairs by the dealer. However, during transportation back to Nirma Ltd., the vehicle was intercepted and seized under section 130 of the GGST Act, 2017, due to the absence of an e-way bill for the goods in movement.

The petitioner argued that the interception occurred before the e-way bill was generated, and the goods were being transported back for job-work, not for any taxable supply. Reference was made to section 2(108) of the GGST Act, 2017, defining taxable supply as goods or services leviable to tax under the Act. It was contended that no tax was applicable in this case, and the petitioner should only be liable for a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 122(xiv) of the GGST Act, 2017.

Considering the submissions and documents indicating the transportation of an old Winch Machine for repairs, the Court found merit in the petitioner's argument. It was concluded that the petitioner, at most, would be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 as per clause (xiv) of section 122 of the GGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the Court issued notice for further proceedings and directed the respondents to release the seized vehicle and goods upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000 with the authorities.

In conclusion, the Court acknowledged the circumstances of the case, emphasizing that the interception was related to the absence of an e-way bill during the transportation of machinery for repairs, not for any taxable supply. The Court's decision focused on the liability of the petitioner for a penalty rather than tax, ensuring the release of the seized vehicle and goods upon compliance with the prescribed fine.

---