Gujarat HC quashes detention order for clerical error in e-Way Bill vehicle type selection under Section 129 CGST Act

Gujarat HC allowed the writ application challenging detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of CGST Act. The petitioner made a clerical error in selecting ODC vehicle type while generating e-Way Bill. Court held that CBEC Circular 20/16/03/2017-GST provides that proceedings under Section 129 may not ordinarily be initiated when goods are accompanied by proper invoice and e-way bill. Since petitioner promptly admitted the mistake and brought it to authority's notice, court gave benefit of doubt. The detention order in Form GST MOV 06 and notice in Form GST MOV 07 were quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of Notice issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act
2. Quashing of order of detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act
3. Stay on implementation of the Notice and order of detention
4. Directing release of detained goods worth Rs.12,19,889
5. Seeking further relief and costs for the petition

Issue 1: Quashing of Notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act:
The writ applicant sought to quash the Notice issued by respondent No.3 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The High Court noted that the only discrepancy in the E-way bill was a "wrong vehicle type." The court, prima facie, opined that the detention of goods and conveyance on this ground seemed unjustified. The court issued a notice to respondents for final disposal and directed the authority to reconsider its decision by the next returnable date.

Issue 2: Quashing of order of detention under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act:
The writ applicant also aimed to set aside the order of detention passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The court observed that the goods were in transit with all necessary documents, including a correct E-way bill, truck registration, and LR details. Referring to a circular by the Government clarifying penalties for minor discrepancies in E-way bills, the court found that the writ applicant's case fell within permissible errors, granting the benefit of doubt and quashing the detention order.

Issue 3: Stay on implementation of Notice and order of detention:
Pending the final disposal of the petition, the writ applicant requested a stay on the implementation of the Notice and order of detention. The court, after considering the facts and the circular regarding E-way bill discrepancies, decided to quash both the Notice and the detention order, thereby releasing the goods and conveyance without delay.

Issue 4: Directing release of detained goods worth Rs.12,19,889:
A crucial aspect of the case was the release of goods worth Rs.12,19,889 detained by the authorities. The court, after analyzing the circumstances and the circular guidelines, allowed the writ application, thereby directing the immediate release of the goods and conveyance to the writ applicant.

Issue 5: Seeking further relief and costs for the petition:
Apart from the primary reliefs sought, the writ applicant also requested any further relief deemed just and proper, along with the costs for the petition. The court, after granting the main reliefs, disposed of the writ application, thereby addressing all the issues raised comprehensively.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the court's consideration of each issue raised by the writ applicant and the subsequent legal reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the writ applicant.

---