Detained goods to be released on furnishing full payment of tax and penalty.

Case Title: U.P. Bone Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Court Name: High Court of Allahabad

Petition Number: Writ Tax No. 1324 of 2019

Category of Dispute: Detention of Goods – E-Way Bill Compliance

Date of Judgement: 06 December 2019

Relevant Sections: Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 (Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit)

Facts of the Case [¶1–3]

1. U.P. Bone Mills (P.) Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the detention notices dated 14/15th November 2019 and 18th November 2019 issued by CGST authorities at Muzaffarnagar.
2. The seizure was carried out on the ground that the driver/person in charge did not produce valid documents like the e-way bill, although the petitioner claimed that all documents were in fact shown to the officer at the time of interception [¶2].
3. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay any excess amount found due after assessment, though the Court noted absence of a Board resolution authorizing such offer by the company [¶3].

Question(s) in Consideration [¶1–2]

• Whether the detention of goods and vehicle by the authorities was justified despite the driver’s submission of valid documents.
• Whether the petitioners were entitled to release of goods upon payment of the dues assessed by the department.

Observation of the Court [¶3–4]

1. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether documents were actually produced or not but noted the petitioner’s willingness to pay dues determined upon assessment [¶3].
2. The Court took a pragmatic approach and directed the authorities to assess and communicate the excess amount along with applicable penalty to the petitioner within three weeks [¶4].

Judgement of the Court [¶4]

• The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondent authorities calculate and communicate the due amount and penalty to the petitioner within three weeks.
• If the petitioner makes full payment within a week thereafter, the seized goods and vehicle are to be released in accordance with law [¶4].

Between Fine Lines

• The Court prioritized resolution over prolonged litigation by accepting the petitioner’s willingness to pay dues.
• The legality of seizure was not adjudicated upon, implying procedural leniency in commercial matters.
• Payment followed by release was directed to reduce business hardship.
• Lack of Board resolution was noted but not made a ground for rejection.
• Practical relief was preferred over legal formality.

Summary of Referred Cases

(No specific prior cases were cited or relied upon in this judgement.)