2020 (12) TMI 894 - HC - GST

Court Orders Prompt Release of Goods, Stresses Procedural Adherence

The Court allowed the writ application in favor of the petitioner, directing respondent No.2 to release the goods and the vehicle promptly. The Court ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - some mismatch between the invoice and the e-way bill inasmuch as the invoice had been issued by the writ applicant situated at Bhavnagar where the place of dispatch mentioned in the e-way bill is shown to be Jalna at State of Maharashtra - HELD THAT:- Mr. Antani, the learned AGP has fairly pointed out that he has discussed the matter with the officer concerned and he has been instructed to make a statement before the court that the inquiry conducted so far has revealed that there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. Mr. Antani further submits that, as there was some confusion, the authority concerned thought fit to detain the goods under Section 129 of the Act. However, after thorough inquiry, the authority itself has come to the conclusion that it is no longer necessary to detain the goods and the vehicle. This writ application stands allowed - The respondent No.2 shall release the goods as well as the vehicle at the earliest. Issues:Detention of goods under Section 129(1) of the GST Act due to mismatch between invoice and e-way bill.Analysis:The petitioner, engaged in trading, faced detention of goods by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 129(1) of the GST Act. The detention was based on a perceived mismatch between the invoice issued by the petitioner at Bhavnagar and the e-way bill indicating dispatch from Jalna, Maharashtra. The petitioner contended that the transaction was a 'Bill to ship to,' as mentioned in the e-way bill itself. The petitioner also submitted written explanations to the authorities, asserting compliance with the Rules. The Court, after hearing both parties, requested the respondent AGP to seek instructions and revert for further clarification.Upon receiving instructions, the AGP informed the Court that after inquiry, it was found that there was no contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rules. The authorities, after initial confusion, concluded that detaining the goods under Section 129 was unnecessary. Consequently, the respondent No.2 was directed to release the goods and the vehicle promptly. The Court, considering the respondent's stance and the inquiry's outcome, allowed the writ application without delving into the merits further. The AGP was tasked with communicating the order to respondent No.2 for immediate action.In conclusion, the Court's decision favored the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and the necessity for authorities to conduct thorough inquiries before detaining goods under the GST Act. The judgment highlighted the significance of resolving discrepancies efficiently to prevent unwarranted detentions and ensure compliance with statutory provisions.