Order of Seizure cannot be challenged in case of expired e-way bill due to non-availability of vehicle

Case Details:

Issue- In the above case,the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order passed by respondent authority rejecting appeal of the petitioner that according to petitioner, the goods were handed over to transporter M/s Bombay Kandla Transport Pvt. Ltd. for transporting the goods to Meghalaya through Truck No.NL01N/6504 and a E-Way bill was generated on 8-4-2018 itself. The transporter, on the same day, also issued a bility for transporting the goods to Meghalaya. The Vehicle No.NL01N/6504 was used for transporting fruits and vegetable to West Bengal by Bombay Kolkata Logistics through bility No.382/08-04-2018 and the journey had already commenced on 7-4-2018. The vehicle returned to Delhi on 11-4-2018 and again on 12-4-2018 the same vehicle was loaded with rice to be transported to Darbhanga (Bihar) by Hemkunt Logistics through bility No.305. The vehicle returned on 17-4-2018 at about 6 P.M. and was made available to the petitioner for transporting Pan Masala. The journey began on intervening night of 17/18-4-2018. The goods were intercepted on 18-4-2018 at 3.42 P.M. by the Mobile Squad at Kanpur. At the time of interception of goods, the driver had produced tax invoice and bility. The goods were detained and thereafter seizure order was passed on 1-5-2018 and 100% penalty of Rs.33,81,000/- along with tax of Rs.9,46,680/- and Cess of Rs.20,28,600/- total amount Rs.63,56,280/-, was imposed. Aggrieved by the seizure order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by the appellate authority.

Held- It was held that Chapter XVI of CGST Rule, 2017 provides for E-Way Rules. According to the same, information regarding transporter and the vehicle has to be provided in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01 before movement of goods. Once, Part-B of Form GST EWB-01 is filled, a presumption is raised that the goods are in movement. However, if movement of goods has not commenced, the legislature has provided for a way out through Rule 138(9) whereby E-Way which has been generated on the common portal, may be cancelled electronically. A safeguard has been provided that it cannot be cancelled if it has been verified in transit in accordance with Rule 138-B. The dealer in the present case had waited for 10 long days and did not cancel the E-Way Bill generated by him on common portal, though, the vehicle was not provided by the transporter and it is clearly evident that vehicle no.NL01N/6504 was not only used by Bombay Kandla Transport (P) Ltd. through which goods were sent by the petitioner-dealer, but also by Bombay Kolkata Logistics for sending fruits and vegetable to Panchkula and by Delhi Hemkunt Logistics for sending rice to Darbhanga (Bihar). Once, the vehicle was not available on 8-4-2018 and was used for transporting fruits and vegetable and its journey commenced on 7-4-2018, the case set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted and has rightly been denied by the authorities. Moreover, that Darbhanga Dealer to whom it is alleged that rice was sent had denied such transaction as the firm having already closed down two months prior to the transactions which corroborates the facts that through tax invoice and E-Way Bill generated on 8-4-2018, the dealer has made several transactions and evaded tax. The Chart given in para 7 of the counter affidavit reflects movement of the vehicle through various Toll Plazas on relevant dates and is an establishment of fact that number of trips were made from Delhi to other places through one and the same document and also through one and the same vehicle. Therefore, writ petition was dismissed.