Piyush Steel, D And I Excelus vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the writ application. The primary issue revolved around the detention of goods under Section 129(1) of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the "bill to ship to" nature of the transaction, as reflected in the e-way bill, meant there was no contravention. The revenue, after conducting an inquiry as directed by the Court, conceded that their initial apprehension of a mismatch was unfounded and that there had been no contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rules. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the merits of the case. The Court directed the respondent to release the detained goods and the vehicle at the earliest. The Court also requested the learned AGP to communicate this order to the concerned respondent for prompt action.

Facts

Piyush Steel, a proprietorship concern registered under GST, was engaged in trading TMT bars. It received an order from M/s. Shivam Scrap Traders in Ahmedabad and placed an order with M/s. Osiya Traders in Maharashtra. The vendor in Maharashtra prepared tax invoices and generated an e-way bill. Piyush Steel instructed the vendor and transporter to deliver the goods directly to its customer in Ahmedabad. Piyush Steel also prepared its own tax invoice and generated an e-way bill, selecting the "bill to ship to" option, which indicated dispatch from Jalna, Maharashtra. The goods were detained on November 29, 2020, by the State of Gujarat and another respondent under Section 129(1) of the GST Act due to a perceived mismatch between the invoice and e-way bill regarding the place of dispatch.

Key Issues

1. Whether the detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the GST Act was without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and illegal, given the "bill to ship to" nature of the transaction and the accompanying documentation. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the transaction was a "bill to ship to" arrangement, which was clearly indicated in the e-way bill. They argued that there was no contravention of the GST Act or Rules, and the detention was therefore unjustified. They relied on the fact that their own invoice and e-way bill, reflecting the correct "bill to ship to" details, were with the transporter. Revenue's arguments: The revenue initially detained the goods under Section 129(1) due to a perceived mismatch between the invoice and the e-way bill concerning the place of dispatch. However, after an inquiry, the revenue conceded that there had been no contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rules.