HC dismisses petition challenging goods detention under Section 129 CGST/SGST Act due to improper E-Way bill Part-B entry

HC dismissed petition challenging detention of goods and conveyance under Section 129 of CGST/SGST Act, 2017. Court held that Part-B of E-Way bill was not properly entered as required under Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017. Petitioner argued no intent to evade tax, but court ruled that Section 129 does not require proof of intention to evade tax - only non-compliance with documentation requirements. Since petitioner paid tax and penalty under Section 129(3), proceedings were deemed concluded under Section 129(5), leaving no grounds for interference.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Proper Officer and Appellate Authority regarding detention of goods in transit and imposition of tax and penalty under CGST/SGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing, challenged the orders passed by the Proper Officer-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer and the Appellate Authority regarding the detention of goods in transit. The goods were apprehended while in transit in a vehicle, and discrepancies were found in the E-way bills and accompanying documents. The Proper Officer detained the conveyance under Section 129(1) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and imposed tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 43,85,068. The petitioner challenged these actions, claiming no intention to evade tax but disputing the quantum of tax and penalty imposed.

The Appellate Authority affirmed the Proper Officer's decision, leading the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The petitioner acknowledged the violation of Section 68 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 but disputed the quantum of tax and penalty, arguing against the imposition of penalty due to the absence of intent to evade tax. The respondents contended that the petitioner's actions fell within the scope of Section 129 of the Act, as the E-way bill was not in compliance with the law.

The court analyzed Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, which allows for the detention and seizure of goods in transit for contravention of the Act's provisions, without requiring proof of intent to evade tax. The authorities have the power to detain goods and demand payment of tax and penalty in such cases. The petitioner had made the payment under Section 129(3) of the Act, indicating compliance with the statutory requirements.

The court concluded that under Section 129(5) of the Act, once the payment is made, all proceedings related to the notice are deemed concluded. Therefore, there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit based on the legal provisions and actions taken by the authorities.

---