Ab Traders vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted the chronological events, including the detention order and the petitioner's communication raising issues of provisional release and objections to confiscation. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner is the owner of the goods and that the vehicle and goods were seized. While the Court chose not to enter into the merits of the matter at the stage of detention (GST MOV 10), it took note of the petitioner's concern regarding provisional release. The Court directed that the application for provisional release under Section 67(6) of the Act be considered by the authority. A speaking order was to be passed on the issue of provisional release within two weeks, allowing the petitioner to take further legal recourse. The Court also directed the officer to consider the guidelines provided in the case of F.S. Enterprise Versus State of Gujarat. The petition was disposed of with these directions, deferring a decision on the merits of the confiscation.

Facts

AB Traders, a proprietorship firm, arranged for the transportation of arecanut to New Delhi. They instructed the transporter to commence movement only after receiving the tax invoice and e-way bill. Due to intermittent network outages, AB Traders could not immediately generate the e-way bill. The transporter, in haste, loaded the goods and began the journey without the e-way bill. The truck was intercepted by the respondent authority. While the tax invoice and transport receipt were produced, the absence of an e-way bill led to the detention of the goods. Subsequently, a detention order and confiscation notice were served, alleging non-availability of the e-way bill, suspension of the recipient's registration, and undervaluation of goods. AB Traders requested provisional release of goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the GST Act and objected to the confiscation under Section 130, asserting the buyer's registration was active and there was no undervaluation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the provisional release of goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the GST Act, as prayed by the petitioner, considering the goods were in transit and detained due to the absence of an e-way bill. 2. Whether the confiscation notice issued under Section 130 of the GST Act is without jurisdiction and illegal, as contended by the petitioner, given their objections regarding the buyer's registration status and alleged undervaluation. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they had made all reasonable efforts to obtain the e-way bill, but network issues prevented its immediate generation. They contended that the buyer's registration was active, contrary to the authority's allegation, and that the goods were not undervalued. They relied on the provisions of Section 67(6) for provisional release and sought quashing of the confiscation notice. They also cited the decision in Special Civil Application No.5172 of 2020. Revenue's arguments: The learned AGP for the respondents stated that the concerned officer would address the petitioner's grievance in accordance with the law and requested the Court not to interfere. They also noted that the next scheduled date was 24.09.2021.