Lg Electronics INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 03 Others
Held
The Court held that the seizure of the petitioner's goods on March 26, 2018, was bad in law. This was because, during the period from February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018, the requirement of an E-way bill was not applicable to the petitioner's transactions. The Court relied on its own Division Bench judgment in M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others, which had previously ruled on this specific point. Consequently, the impugned seizure order dated March 26, 2018, passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, was quashed. All consequential proceedings arising from this seizure were also dropped. The ratio decidendi is that a seizure based on a non-existent statutory requirement is illegal.
Facts
The petitioner, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., had its goods seized on March 26, 2018, while in transit from Haryana to Greater NOIDA. The seizure was based on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by an E-way bill. The petitioner contended that the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to their transactions during the period of February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018. The seizure order was passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure of goods on March 26, 2018, was valid in law, considering the applicability of the E-way bill requirement during the period of February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: 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 M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others, decided on September 18, 2018, which held that goods were not covered by the E-way bill requirement between February 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018. Therefore, the seizure, being solely based on the absence of an E-way bill, was illegal. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 620 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Gupta,Utkarsh Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyan Prakash Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The goods of the petitioner in movement from Haryana to Greater NOIDA were seized on 26.3.2018 on the ground that they were not accompanied with the E-way bill.
The submission of Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018 the requirement of E-way bill was not applicable to the transaction of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench of this 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 18.9.2018 and in para 56 it has been held that the goods were not covered with the requirement of E-way bill during 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018. The goods in the present case were seized on 26.3.2018 that is only for the reason th
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.