AB Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, received an order for supply of arecanut to a buyer in New Delhi and appointed a transporter for delivery. The transporter was instructed to commence movement only after receiving both the tax invoice and the e-way bill. However, due to intermittent network outages, the petitioner was unable to immediately generate the e-way bill. The transporter, acting in haste, proceeded with the transportation without waiting for the e-way bill, although the tax invoice and transport receipt were available.
During transit, the vehicle was intercepted by the authorities. The driver produced the tax invoice and transport receipt, and no discrepancy was found in the quantity of goods. Despite this, the goods and vehicle were detained solely due to the absence of the e-way bill. Subsequently, a detention order and confiscation notice were issued, also alleging that the buyer’s registration was suspended and that the goods were undervalued.
The petitioner contested these allegations, asserting that the buyer’s registration was active and that the absence of the e-way bill was due to technical issues. The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods and vehicle under Section 67(6) of the GST Act and filed objections against the confiscation proceedings under Section 130. Despite repeated communications, no action was taken by the authorities for provisional release, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
