M/S Shree Agency Through Its Proprietor Aaditya Kumar Agarwal vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard Shri Puneet Arun, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Since the issue involved in the aforesaid petitions are similar, both the writ petitions are being decided together by this common judgment.

For convenience, the facts of the Writ Tax No.741 of 2021 are being delineated:

By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer: (i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to pass specific order of penalty in consequence of the order of seizure and refund the amount of security after adjusting the amount of penalty if any imposed under the Act. (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to return the indemnity bond so furnished by the petitioner as security, in compliance of the interim order dated 28.02.2018 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Writ Tax No. 263 of 2018; (iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.02.2021 (Annexure No.15) to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.4; Or in the alternative

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act. In the normal course of business, the goods were being transported from Gujarat to Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh and the same were accompanied with tax invoice, G.R. and e-way bill, but the same were intercepted and seized on the ground that e-way bill was not accompanied with the goods and tax and penalty in terms of sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 129 of the GST Act was demanded for release of goods.

He further submits that during that the period when the goods in question were in transit, there was no provision under the GST Act for accompanying the goods with e-way bill.

He further submits that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2018 U.P.T.C. ,Vol. 100, 1206. 8. The said fact has not been disputed by Shri R.S. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

Since the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that there is no requirement of carrying e- way bill while entering into the State of Uttar Pradesh. Once there is no such requirement of it, the entire proceedings are wrong.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed in the terms of the judgment of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad