Sterile India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India – [2023]
The petitioner worked as a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Because Part-B of the E-Way bill was not entered, the department stopped the petitioner’s vehicle and held their items. After the detention order was passed and the bank received the guarantee, the commodities were released.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the detention order. It submitted a writ petition to contest the rulings made by the authorities, arguing that there was no intent to avoid taxes and that the fine shouldn’t be imposed.
The Honorable High Court noted that the commodities were seized in transit and that the accompanying documentation did not adhere to GST Act regulations. In this instance, the driver of the vehicle submitted an e-way bill along with tax invoices and delivery challans, but Part-B of the e-way bill was not entered, therefore the authorities were within their rights to hold the items and seek a fine.
The Court further pointed out that in order to hold goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act of 2017, the authorities are not necessary to prove that they intended to avoid paying taxes. The procedures in relation to the notice were taken into consideration to have been completed because the petitioner had previously paid payment in accordance with Section 129(3). As a result, the petition was dismissed and there was no justification to interfere with the contested ruling.
