L.G. Electronics INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. State Of U P And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the seizure of the petitioner's goods on February 12, 2018, was bad in law. This was because the seizure was effected on the sole ground of the absence of an E-way bill. The Court noted that the period of seizure, February 12, 2018, fell within the period of February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018. The Court relied on its own previous decision in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018, wherein it was held that the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to transactions during this specific period. Consequently, the impugned seizure order dated February 12, 2018, passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, was quashed, and all consequential proceedings were dropped. The writ petition was allowed.

Facts

The petitioner, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., had goods in transit from Haryana to Greater NOIDA seized on February 12, 2018. The seizure was based on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by an E-way bill. The petitioner contended that for the period between February 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018, the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to their transactions. This contention was supported by a previous decision of the same High Court in a similar case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of goods on February 12, 2018, was valid in law, given that the E-way bill requirement was allegedly not applicable to the petitioner's transactions during the period of February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018, as per Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the E-way bill was not mandatory for their transactions during the specified period. They relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others), decided on September 18, 2018, which held that the E-way bill was not required for goods in transit between February 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018. Therefore, the seizure on February 12, 2018, solely for the absence of an E-way bill, was illegal. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.