Mora Ramya vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.15481 of 2023 & batch. In that prior judgment, the Court had directed the respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, conduct an inquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders. The Court had also ordered the release of detained goods upon deposit of 25% of their value and execution of a personal bond for the balance. Similarly, vehicles were to be released upon execution of personal security bonds for their value. Following this precedent, the Court directed the 4th respondent to release the petitioner's vehicle on the execution of a personal security bond for the value of the vehicle, as determined by the concerned Road Transport Authority, within one week. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Mora Ramya, is the owner of a lorry bearing registration number AP 39 TB 5365. On March 6, 2025, the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), seized the vehicle while it was transporting granite slabs. The seizure was based on the ground that a proper E-Way Bill was not available for the transportation. The petitioner approached the 4th respondent for the release of the vehicle, but her request was not acceded to. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the release of her vehicle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle and granite slabs by the 4th respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), for the alleged absence of a proper E-Way Bill, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the action of the 4th respondent was arbitrary and illegal. She relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.15481 of 2023 & batch, dated August 3, 2023, which dealt with a similar situation. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their action of seizing the vehicle and goods implies a contention that such seizure was permissible under the relevant GST laws due to the non-compliance with E-Way Bill requirements.