Considering the prime defence of the petitioner that he is not a registered dealer nor is he dealing in purchase and sale of vehicles and the ambulances have been purchased by the petitioner only for its own use and purpose since the petitioner wants to start a business of proving ambulance service, it would not be appropriate to allow further detention of the vehicles. The vehicles shall be released as soon as the petitioner furnishes unconditional Bank guarantee.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner challenged the action of the respondent in seizing and detaining an ambulance van which the petitioner had purchased for its own business purpose. Two more ambulances of the petitioner were similarly detained by the respondent on the same day i.e. on 20th July 2021 on the ground that the vehicles did not carry e-way bills. The petitioner submitted that the vehicles are purchased not for resale but for the own use and business purpose of the petitioner and in which case, there was no necessity of regenerating an e-way bill. Detention and seizure of the vehicles are thus without jurisdiction. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. The petitioner has not filed reply to the show case notice. The court observed that since the ambulances have been purchased by the petitioner only for its own use and purpose and the petitioner wants to start a business of proving ambulance service.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that it would be open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notices dated 21st July 2021 by 10th August 2021. The Assessing Officer shall thereupon pass order in relation to these show cause notices, in accordance with law. In the meantime, the vehicles shall be released as soon as the petitioner furnishes unconditional Bank guarantee to the tune of 25% of the possible tax and penalties and furnishing a bond for the remaining 75% of the values.
Considering the prime defence of the petitioner that he is not a registered dealer nor is he dealing in purchase and sale of vehicles and the ambulances have been purchased by the petitioner only for its own use and purpose since the petitioner wants to start a business of proving ambulance service, it would not be appropriate to allow further detention of the vehicles. The vehicles shall be released as soon as the petitioner furnishes unconditional Bank guarantee.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner challenged the action of the respondent in seizing and detaining an ambulance van which the petitioner had purchased for its own business purpose. Two more ambulances of the petitioner were similarly detained by the respondent on the same day i.e. on 20th July 2021 on the ground that the vehicles did not carry e-way bills. The petitioner submitted that the vehicles are purchased not for resale but for the own use and business purpose of the petitioner and in which case, there was no necessity of regenerating an e-way bill. Detention and seizure of the vehicles are thus without jurisdiction. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. The petitioner has not filed reply to the show case notice. The court observed that since the ambulances have been purchased by the petitioner only for its own use and purpose and the petitioner wants to start a business of proving ambulance service.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that it would be open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notices dated 21st July 2021 by 10th August 2021. The Assessing Officer shall thereupon pass order in relation to these show cause notices, in accordance with law. In the meantime, the vehicles shall be released as soon as the petitioner furnishes unconditional Bank guarantee to the tune of 25% of the possible tax and penalties and furnishing a bond for the remaining 75% of the values.