Lokendra Chouhan vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.15481 of 2023 & batch. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench, which addressed a similar situation of vehicle and goods seizure due to e-way bill discrepancies. The Court directed the 4th respondent to release the seized vehicle in favour of the petitioner. This release is conditional upon the petitioner executing a personal security bond for the value of the vehicle, to be determined by the concerned Road Transport Authority. The Court specified that this release should be completed within one week. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of seizure for e-way bill irregularities, the procedure outlined in Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, should be followed, and interim release of goods/vehicles can be facilitated upon fulfillment of specified conditions, as per established High Court precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Lokendra Chouhan, is the owner of a lorry (No. RJ 20 GC 4229) that was seized by the 4th respondent on February 7, 2025. The seizure occurred while the vehicle was transporting granite from Chemakurty to Madhya Pradesh. The reason for the seizure was the alleged absence of a proper e-way bill. The petitioner's request for the release of the vehicle was refused by the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by this refusal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the vehicle and granite for the absence of a proper e-way bill, without initiating proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the seizure and subsequent refusal to release the vehicle were improper. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in W.P.No.15481 of 2023 & batch, dated August 3, 2023. This judgment dealt with similar circumstances and directed the release of goods and vehicles upon certain conditions, including initiating proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' action of seizing the vehicle without immediately initiating Section 129 proceedings was not in line with the established precedent.