Order Date – 16 August 2023

Parties: M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. in its normal course of business made inward supply of B55HM0003NA G-LEX HDPE-2 HSN 3901.20.00 15 from GAIL, for which two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were prepared also two Eway Bills were generated having validity upto 12.3.2023. A GR was also prepared on the same day i.e. 6.3.2023 in which invoice numbers and Eway bills have specifically been mentioned.
• On the way of transit, the driver become ill and could not reach the destination before 12.3.2023. The Vehicle was intercepted on 13.3.2023 and issued From GST MOV 07 proposing to impose penalty. An order under section 129 (3) of the Act was passed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,18,624/- for release of goods.
• Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioner preferred the present appeal.

Issue - 

• Whether the interception of vehicle on expiry of E-way bill is in order?

Order -

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the proceedings were initiated only the ground that the goods were transited after expiry of the E-way bills. No other discrepancy has been found either in quality, or goods as disclosed in the invoices, E-way bills or GR.
• From a perusal of the order the reply submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by only saying that the reply is not found to be acceptable. No other reason has been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Further, it has been observed that the claim of the petitioner was not found on justifiable ground.
• Further since the petitioner has submitted its reply taking the stand that there was break down of the vehicle and the driver fell ill but no reason has been assigned by any of the authorities in the impugned orders for disbelieving the same.
• In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and since the authorities below have not recorded any findings with regard to the submissions made by the petitioner the impugned orders dated 27.3.2023 and 18.4.2023 as well as seizure memo dated 23.7.2023 could not be sustained in the eye of law.
• The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in support of their claim.