Rivigo Services PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the seizure and penalty proceedings were illegal. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the third proviso of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, as amended by Notification No. 12 of 2018 and Notification No. 487 (U.P. Goods and Service Fourteenth Amendment Rules, 2018), permitted the non-furnishing of 'Part B' details of the e-way bill when goods were transported for a distance up to 50 km within the State from the consignor's business place to the transporter's place for further transportation. The distance in this case (25-30 km) was within this limit. Furthermore, the Court referred to the Press Information Bureau clarification dated 31st March 2018, which indicated that 'Part B' of the e-way bill could be updated by the subsequent transporter when goods were reloaded for onward journey. The Court reasoned that it was impractical to fill 'Part B' details when the goods had not yet reached the transshipment point and the subsequent vehicle details were unknown. Since the consignor, consignee, and the transporter were registered dealers, and the government itself had clarified the procedure, there was no justification for seizing the goods and vehicle. The Court set aside the seizure order and penalty notice and ordered the release of goods and the vehicle upon furnishing an indemnity bond for the proposed tax and penalty.

Facts

Rivigo Services Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner), a registered company engaged in goods transportation, challenged a seizure order and penalty notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Mobile Squad, Ghaziabad (respondent no. 4). The goods, Flexible Laminates, were dispatched by M/s Paharpur 3P from Ghaziabad to M/s Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd. in Telangana and M/s Saife Vetmed Pvt. Ltd. in Dehradun. The consignor prepared e-way bills on 15.04.2018. The goods were initially loaded onto Truck No. U.P.-14FT-0643 and brought to Rivigo's Greater Noida branch for transshipment. At this branch, the goods were reloaded into different trucks for their final destinations. The respondent intercepted the initial truck at 11:35 PM on 15.04.2018, issuing a detention notice because 'Part B' of the e-way bills, detailing the vehicle number, was not filled. The seizure order dated 16.04.2018 proposed a tax of Rs. 1,54,792/-. A penalty notice under Section 129(3) was also issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the Act and the consequential penalty notice under Section 129(3) were illegal when 'Part B' of the e-way bill, containing vehicle details, was not filled at the time of interception, given that the goods were being transshipped at the petitioner's branch within a short distance from the consignor's premises. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that Notification No. 12 of 2018 and Notification No. 487 (U.P. Goods and Service Fourteenth Amendment Rules, 2018) amended Rule 138 of the GST Rules. The third proviso to Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 138 allowed for the non-furnishing of conveyance details in 'Part B' of the e-way bill for goods transported up to 50 km within the State from the consignor's place of business to the transporter's place for further transportation. The distance between the consignor and the petitioner's Greater Noida branch was approximately 25-30 km, well within the prescribed limit. They also relied on a Press Information Bureau clarification dated 31st March 2018, which explained that 'Part B' could be updated by the subsequent transporter after assignment. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the department supported the seizure order and penalty proceedings, arguing that the movement of goods was from inside the State of U.P. to outside the State, and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to scrutinize the documents, including 'Part B' of the e-way bill.