Vehicle detention penalty set aside when goods had proper invoices and E-way bills before registration suspension

HC allowed writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 129 CGST Act and Section 20 IGST Act. Petitioner's vehicle was intercepted while transporting goods, leading to detention and penalty order based on alleged registration suspension. Court found goods were accompanied by proper tax invoices and E-way bills dated before suspension, making penalty unjustified. Relying on precedent that goods with proper documentation should be released under Section 129(1)(a), HC set aside penalty order and directed authorities to release goods within two weeks.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings under Section 129 of CGST Act and Section 20 of IGST Act, demand of penalty order, detention order, validity of notice issued, suspension of registration, justification of penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act, along with a penalty order and detention order. The petitioner's vehicle was intercepted by authorities while en route from Bihar to Gurugram. The authorities detained the goods for allegedly moving without proper documents and issued a notice indicating the suspension of the petitioner's registration. The petitioner contested the notice and penalty order, arguing that the registration suspension was unjustified as the requisite documents were with the vehicle. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in a similar case. The Standing counsel supported the impugned order, claiming the petitioner obtained registration with fake documents, justifying the penalty imposition.

The Court considered the submissions and examined the evidence on record. It noted that the documents accompanying the goods were dated before the registration suspension date. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized that if goods are accompanied by proper tax invoices and E-way bills, the petitioner is deemed the owner, and goods should be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act. Since the respondents did not dispute the presence of proper documents with the goods, the penalty imposition based on registration suspension was deemed unjustified. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the penalty order dated 16.10.2024 and directed the authorities to release the goods within two weeks in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.

---