Irc (INDIA) LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the E-way bill part B was downloaded by the petitioner before the detention and seizure of the goods and vehicle. The downloaded E-way bill contained all the necessary information. Therefore, there was no irregularity in the transaction. Consequently, the seizure order and the penalty notice issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the UPGST Act, along with the consequential proceedings, were set aside. The Court directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that if the E-way bill, with all required particulars, is available at the time of interception or before seizure, the detention and seizure of goods under Section 129 of the UPGST Act are unjustified.
Facts
The petitioner, Irc (India) Ltd., was transporting goods from Jamshedpur to Ghaziabad. The vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 at NOIDA on April 21, 2018. The reason for detention was the alleged absence of the E-way bill part B. The petitioner contended that the E-way bill part B was downloaded on April 21, 2018, before the vehicle's detention and seizure. The goods were ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act on April 21, 2018. The petitioner submitted relevant documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills, which were annexed to the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the detention and seizure of goods and vehicle were justified when the E-way bill part B was downloaded before the interception and seizure, as per Section 129 of the UPGST Act? The petitioner argued that the E-way bill part B was downloaded prior to the detention and seizure of the goods and vehicle, and it contained all necessary information. Therefore, there was no contravention of the provisions of the UPGST Act, making the detention, seizure, and subsequent penalty notice illegal. The petitioner relied on the fact that the downloaded E-way bill was presented and available. The revenue/State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the E-way bill's status or the validity of the detention.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 717 of 2018 Petitioner :- Irc (India) Ltd.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1,3 and 4.
The goods were being booked and transported from Jamshedpur to Ghaziabad, Dada Nagar, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 19.04.2018 to be delivered at Ghaziabad and in between, the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at NOIDA. The objection of respondent no. 4 while detaining the goods was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill-part B.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the E-way bill, which has been issued on 14.04.2018 under the CGST as well as E-way bill part B, which has been downloaded on 21.04.2018 at 8:30 am before the detention of the vehicle. The goods are ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act on 21.04.2018 at 10:30 pm.
We have perused the
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.