M/S.G.S.Traders vs. Deputy Commissioner, And Another

Held

The Court directed that if the petitioner pays the penalty of Rs. 1,20,770.00 within four weeks from the date of the order, the vehicle and the seized goods shall be released. The Court clarified that this order was solely for the purpose of releasing the vehicle and goods upon payment of the penalty. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality or jurisdiction of the initial detention and seizure orders, nor did it delve into the validity of the e-way bill in detail, focusing instead on facilitating the release of goods upon payment of the imposed penalty. The reasoning appears to be a pragmatic approach to resolve the immediate issue of goods detention by offering a path to their release.

Facts

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST and TSGST Acts, had goods (TMT bars) in transit. The vehicle carrying the goods broke down and, after repair, was intercepted by personnel under Respondent No. 1. The goods and vehicle were seized on October 30, 2021, on the grounds of being transported without a valid e-way bill. Respondent No. 2 subsequently issued a detention order on October 30, 2021, and an order on November 12, 2021, determining tax payable at Rs. 60,385.00 (CGST and equivalent TSGST) and imposing a 100% penalty of Rs. 1,20,770.00. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash these orders and release the goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention and seizure of goods and vehicle by Respondent No. 1, and the subsequent orders passed by Respondent No. 2, are void, illegal, and without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the e-way bill relied upon by the petitioner pertains to the goods carried by the seized vehicle, as contended by the respondents. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the tax component of Rs. 60,385.50 for CGST and an equivalent amount for SGST had been paid as per the tax invoice. The petitioner also expressed readiness to pay the penalty as the vehicle was under seizure. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their learned Standing Counsel, submitted on instructions that the e-way bill produced by the petitioner did not pertain to the goods carried by the seized vehicle, thereby justifying the impugned orders.