M/S Panasonic INDIA PVT LTD vs. Addditional Commissioner And 2 Others

Facts

M/s Panasonic India Pvt Ltd (petitioner) is challenging an order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner (respondent no.1) in GST Appeal No.1147/2019 for the period AY 2018-19. The petitioner's goods were in transit from Alipur, New Delhi to Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, accompanied by a tax invoice, G.R., and an e-way bill generated on 15.06.2018. The e-way bill expired on 16.06.2018. The goods could not be dispatched on 16.06.2018 because the driver left the vehicle and goods at the consignor's premises to celebrate Eid. The driver returned on 17.06.2018 and proceeded to Ghaziabad, where the vehicle was intercepted on 18.06.2018 by respondent no.2. The goods were detained/seized on the grounds of being transported beyond the e-way bill's validity period. A new e-way bill was generated and produced before the seizure order was passed.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. The Court found that while the original e-way bill had expired, a new e-way bill was generated and presented before the detention/seizure order was passed. The authorities failed to give due weight to this new e-way bill and also failed to record any finding that the petitioner intended to evade tax. The Court observed that the inference drawn against the petitioner, suggesting they took multiple rounds to evade tax, was without any basis or material. The issue was covered by the judgment in Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention/seizure of goods is justified when a new e-way bill was generated and presented before the passing of the detention/seizure order, despite the original e-way bill having expired? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the goods were detained/seized despite a new e-way bill being generated and produced before the order was passed. They argued that no intention to evade tax could be attributed, as evidenced by the timely generation of the new e-way bill. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in M/S Aa Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and 2 others and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) Vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. Respondent's arguments: The respondent supported the impugned order, arguing that the goods were seized two days after the documents were generated. They submitted that the petitioner might have transported the goods without a valid e-way bill under the guise of the existing documents, justifying the initiation of proceedings.