M/S Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Held
The Court held that in most cases, the seizure orders and show cause notices were not sustainable in law due to confusion among authorities regarding the applicable E-Way Bill provisions and the unintentional nature of the omissions by the petitioners. However, in one specific case (Writ Petition No. 87 of 2018), the Court found no reason to interfere and relegated the petitioner to statutory remedies.
Facts
Multiple petitioners challenged seizure orders and show cause notices issued under Section 129 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The primary ground for seizure was the alleged non-compliance with E-Way Bill requirements during the transportation of goods. Petitioners argued that the omission was unintentional and that the provincial statute should not override central legislation.
Key Issues
Whether the seizure of goods and issuance of show cause notices under Section 129 were justified due to alleged non-compliance with E-Way Bill requirements, and if the omissions were deliberate or unintentional.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 129 (1), Section 129 (3), Rule 138
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 (AFR)
Reserved on 25.04.2018 Delivered on 18.09.2018 Court No. 34 (1)
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 587 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. (2)
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 454 of 2018 Petitioner :- L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Gupta,Utkarsh Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. (3)
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 455 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bharti Airtel Limited Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. (4)
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 462 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Guala Closures(India) Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. (5)
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 458 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/s. Ras Polytex Pvt. Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Pandey,Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Vaibhav
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.