2022 (5) TMI 1022 - HC - GST

Writ allowed: Goods and vehicle released; detention quashed for valid invoices and bonafide second e-way bill; Article 14 violated

HC allowed the writ, holding the goods and vehicle could not be detained where they were dispatched under valid invoices and a second e-way bill was ... Seizure and detention of goods under IGST/CGST - e-way bill validity and extension - bona fide generation of second e-way bill due to force majeure/COVID-19 restrictions - absence of intent to evade tax - quashing of administrative orders as arbitrary and illegal - violation of Article 14 - award of costs for harassment and abuse of powerSeizure and detention of goods under IGST/CGST - e-way bill validity and extension - bona fide generation of second e-way bill due to force majeure/COVID-19 restrictions - absence of intent to evade tax - quashing of administrative orders as arbitrary and illegal - violation of Article 14 - Validity of detention/seizure of the goods and vehicle and lawfulness of related orders and notices. - HELD THAT: - The Court found on the admitted facts that the goods originated from Panipat and were dispatched under a valid invoice and LUT for export to Nepal, and that a second e-way bill was generated bona fide because movement was disrupted by COVID-19 related border and movement restrictions. The respondents did not specifically deny the material averments explaining the delay or contend any intention to evade tax. Applying the reasoning in the cited Supreme Court decision, the mere expiry of an e-way bill, without evidence of intent to evade tax or other material indicating sale or diversion, does not justify detention, seizure or confiscation. The seizure and the consequential orders and notices were therefore held to be arbitrary, illegal and in breach of the petitioners' rights under Article 14, and liable to be quashed. The Court directed immediate release of the goods and vehicle. [Paras 12, 14, 15]Impugned detention/seizure order dated 07.03.2022, release order dated 13.03.2022 and notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022 quashed; goods and vehicle released forthwith.Award of costs for harassment and abuse of power - quashing of administrative orders as arbitrary and illegal - Whether the petitioners are entitled to costs and the quantum of costs to be awarded. - HELD THAT: - Having found the detention and related proceedings to be arbitrary and amounting to harassment and abuse of power, and having applied the approach in the cited precedent which endorsed awarding costs in comparable circumstances, the Court exercised its discretion to compensate the petitioners for the litigation and harassment suffered. The award reflects the Court's view that the respondents' actions were unjustified and the petitioners should be compensated accordingly. [Paras 16]Writ petition allowed with costs of Rs.50,000 to each petitioner (total Rs.1,00,000), payable by the respondents within four weeks.Final Conclusion: The High Court quashed the detention, release order and notices as arbitrary and illegal, directed immediate release of the goods and vehicle, and awarded costs to the petitioners to compensate for the harassment caused by the respondents' actions. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Detention/Seizure Order dated 07.03.2022.2. Validity of the Order of Release dated 13.03.2022.3. Validity of the Notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022.4. Legality of the seizure and detention of goods and vehicle.5. Allegation of tax evasion and compliance with e-way bill regulations.6. Abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Detention/Seizure Order dated 07.03.2022:The petitioners challenged the Detention/Seizure Order under Section 20 of the IGST Act read with Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. The court noted that the goods were dispatched from Panipat to Nepal with valid invoices and e-way bills. The goods were detained at Gorakhpur due to COVID-19 restrictions, and a second e-way bill was generated for further transportation. The court found no evidence of tax evasion and deemed the detention arbitrary and illegal.2. Validity of the Order of Release dated 13.03.2022:The Order of Release under Section 20 of the IGST Act read with Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was also challenged. The court observed that the respondents did not provide a specific denial of the petitioners' claims and found that the goods were detained on hyper-technical grounds without any intention of tax evasion. The court quashed the release order as arbitrary and illegal.3. Validity of the Notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022:The petitioners sought to quash the notices issued by respondent no. 3. The court found that the respondents failed to specifically deny the petitioners' claims and that the detention and subsequent notices were based on assumptions without any evidence of tax evasion. The court quashed the notices as arbitrary and illegal.4. Legality of the seizure and detention of goods and vehicle:The court examined the circumstances under which the goods were detained and found that the goods were covered by valid documents. The second e-way bill was generated due to unavoidable delays caused by COVID-19 restrictions. The court held that the seizure and detention were arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, constituting harassment and abuse of power.5. Allegation of tax evasion and compliance with e-way bill regulations:The court noted that the goods were transported with valid invoices and e-way bills. The second e-way bill was generated bonafidely due to delays beyond the petitioners' control. The court found no intention of tax evasion and held that the respondents' actions were based on hyper-technical grounds without any evidence of tax evasion.6. Abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights:The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. vs. M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited & Anr., highlighting the arbitrary and illegal detention of goods and the abuse of power by the respondents. The court emphasized that the respondents' actions violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned detention order dated 07.03.2022, the release order dated 13.03.2022, and the notices dated 22.03.2022 and 28.03.2022. The court directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on each petitioner, to be paid by the respondents within four weeks.