GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Court: Telangana High Court
Case Title: M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others (2021)
Appeal No. & Citation: Writ Petition No.9688 of 2020

Hon’ble Judge(s)	M.S.Ramachandra Rao & T.Vinod Kumar
Date of Order	02.06.2021
Outcome	In favour of Appellant

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., is a registered dealer engaged in the business of trading paper. On 04.01.2020, it supplied goods to a registered buyer within the State of Telangana, supported by a valid tax invoice and an e-way bill. While the goods were in transit, their movement was obstructed due to traffic congestion caused by political rallies protesting CAA and NRC in Hyderabad. The roads were completely blocked, preventing any movement of vehicles until around 8:30 PM. By that time, the consignee’s shop had closed, and therefore, the driver took the goods to his residence with the intention of delivering them on the next working day.
Since 05.01.2020 was a Sunday, the next attempt for delivery was made on 06.01.2020. However, at about 12:35 PM on that day, the vehicle was intercepted and detained by the Deputy State Tax Officer at Tadbund. A detention notice in Form GST MOV-07 was issued on the ground that the e-way bill had expired. Left with no alternative, the petitioner waited until 19.01.2020 and ultimately paid a sum of ?69,000 (comprising CGST, SGST, and equal penalty amounts) under protest to secure release of goods. Aggreived, the present petition is filed

Relevant Section

Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Question before Hon’ble Court

Whether mere expiry of an e-way bill amounts to tax evasion?
Whether detention and seizure of goods were justified under Section 129 of the CGST Act?
Whether principles of natural justice were violated?
Whether tax and penalty can be imposed without evidence of intent to evade tax?

Arguments by Appellant

Illegal Seizure and Storage of Goods
The petitioner contends that the Deputy State Tax Officer (2nd respondent) unlawfully unloaded the detained goods at a private residence belonging to his relative at Marredpally, Secunderabad, instead of storing them at a legally designated place. Therefore, the 2nd respondent acted arbitrarily and beyond his authority in taking physical possession of the goods in such an improper manner.

Submission of Timely Representation (07.01.2020)
The petitioner states that a detailed representation was made on 07.01.2020 explaining the genuine reasons for expiry of the e-way bill and requesting release of goods.A further representation dated 08.01.2020 was submitted, highlighting Rule 138 of the CGST Rules regarding extension of e-way bill validity and enclosing a supporting judgment of the Allahabad High Court. Despite receipt of the representation dated 08.01.2020, the 2nd respondent neither acknowledged it nor took any steps to release the goods.

Coercive Recovery of Tax and Penalty
Due to inaction of the authorities, the petitioner was compelled to pay ?69,000 (CGST, SGST, and penalties) on 20.01.2020 to secure release of goods, which was not a voluntary payment. The goods were released only after the petitioner made payment, demonstrating coercive action by the department.

Loss of Goods During Detention
The petitioner alleges that some goods went missing while under the custody of the department, indicating negligence on part of the authorities.
Lack of Authority of the Officer Issuing Order
The petitioner contends that the order was passed by a Senior Assistant, who is not legally authorized to issue such an order under the GST law. Therefore,on account of procedural irregularities, lack of authority, and violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.Bottom of Form

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Authority and Legality of Detention
The respondent contends that he was duly authorized by the Joint Commissioner (ST) to conduct vehicle inspections, and upon interception, found that the e-way bill had expired on 05.01.2020. Since it was not valid on the date of inspection (06.01.2020), detention of the goods was lawful.
Non-Extension of E-Way Bill in Violation of Rule 138
It is argued that although the law permits extension of the e-way bill within a specified time window, the petitioner failed to do so. Given that the distance was less than 100 km, the permissible validity (including extension) had already lapsed.
Irregularities and Non-Compliance in Transportation
The respondent highlights those three vehicles were used for transportation while only one e-way bill was generated, and details of other vehicles were manually added, indicating procedural lapses and non-compliance.
Existence of Tax Evasion and Lack of Bona Fides
The respondent asserts that the petitioner’s explanations regarding delay are self-serving and intended to cover up non-compliance. It is contended that expiry of the e-way bill cannot be treated as a mere technical error and indicates tax evasion.
Justification for Storage and Handling of Goods
It is submitted that due to rain and non-cooperation of drivers, the goods were stored at a private premises of a known person for safety reasons and kept under CCTV surveillance.
Procedure for Release and Delegation of Authority
The respondent states that during his leave, he authorized a Senior Assistant to issue the release order to avoid delay in delivery, and such action was taken in good faith.
Payment of Tax and Penalty as Condition for Release
It is contended that the petitioner approached the department and paid the applicable tax and penalty on 20.01.2020, after which the goods were released on 22.01.2020 in accordance with law.

Petitioner refuting the allegations

Lack of Proper Authorization
The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent failed to disclose or produce any valid authorization from the Joint Commissioner permitting him to conduct vehicle checks.
Genuine Reason for Delay in Delivery
It is submitted that out of four vehicles, one completed delivery, while the others were delayed due to CAA/NRC protests causing traffic blockage, and therefore detention is unjustified.
Invalid and Defective Detention Notice
The petitioner points out discrepancies in the detention notice, as it bears signatures of a different officer while naming the 2nd respondent as the intercepting officer.
Excessive and Unlawful Detention Period
It is contended that goods were detained for 16 days, whereas permissible detention is limited, making the action illegal.
Expiry Timing Dispute
The petitioner asserts that the e-way bill was valid till 12:00 p.m. on 06.01.2020, and detention at 12:35 p.m. is contrary to law.
Minor Procedural Lapse Cannot Attract Penalty
The petitioner argues that expiry of e-way bill due to unavoidable circumstances is a minor lapse and, in absence of mens rea, penalty cannot be imposed.

Findings and Judgement

The Court held that the petitioner had validly generated the invoice and e-way bill and that the delay in delivery was due to unavoidable circumstances, namely traffic blockage caused by political protests, followed by a Sunday holiday. It found that the respondent failed to consider the petitioner’s explanations and instead mechanically relied on expiry of the e-way bill.
The Court observed that mere expiry of an e-way bill does not amount to tax evasion, especially in the absence of any evidence showing intent to evade tax or diversion of goods. The assumption of tax evasion by the respondent was held to be arbitrary and unsupported by any material.
It also noted procedural lapses, including inconsistencies in the detention notice, passing of the order by an unauthorized officer, and non-consideration of representations. The act of storing goods at a private residence for 16 days was strongly criticized as illegal and an abuse of power.
The Court concluded that the entire action of the respondent was arbitrary, violative of natural justice and Article 14.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the demand, directing refund with interest and directed the 2nd respondent to pay costs of Rs.10,000 to the petitioner in 4 weeks.

Comments

GST update /2026-27/0001

GST UPDATE

Brief Facts of the Case

Relevant Section

Question before Hon’ble Court

Arguments by Appellant

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Petitioner refuting the allegations

Findings and Judgement

Opinion

Author’s Opinion

Post a Comment

Query