Repairs-return movement under GST may avoid confiscation; only limited penalty can apply where taxable supply is not shown.

Goods being transported back after repairs did not prima facie appear to constitute a taxable supply, so confiscation under the GST law was not justified at the interim stage. The Court treated the prompt generation of the e-way bill after interception as supporting the explanation that the movement was not a case for confiscation. On those facts, the matter was regarded as attracting, at most, the limited penalty regime for transport without prescribed documents, and the vehicle with goods was ordered to be released on deposit, leaving the substantive issue open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the goods and vehicle under section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified when the goods were being transported back after repairs and the e-way bill was generated shortly after interception; and whether, on the facts, the petitioner could at the highest be exposed only to the penalty contemplated by section 122(1)(xiv) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The documents placed on record prima facie showed that the old and used winch machine had been sent for repairs and was being transported back to the customer's premises. On that basis, the movement of goods did not appear to involve a taxable supply as defined under section 2(108) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The fact that the e-way bill was generated shortly after interception also supported the petitioner's case that the matter did not call for treatment as a case warranting confiscation. In these circumstances, the Court found prima facie substance in the contention that the maximum consequence, if any, would be the penalty specified for transport of taxable goods without the prescribed documents.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted interim relief and the vehicle with the goods was directed to be released on deposit of Rs. 10,000/-, with the seizure not being sustained at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The order afforded only interim protection to the petitioner and left the substantive controversy open for further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods being moved back after repairs do not prima facie disclose taxable supply, confiscation under section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not warranted at the interim stage and the matter may, at the highest, attract the limited penalty regime applicable to absence of prescribed documents.

---