Mahalaxmi Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act was downloaded by the petitioner much before the detention and seizure of the goods and vehicle. The E-way bill disclosed all the necessary information. Therefore, there was no irregularity in the transaction. Consequently, the seizure order and the penalty notice dated April 4, 2018, issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act, along with the consequential proceedings, were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a valid E-way bill exists and is generated prior to the detention of goods, the detention and seizure based on the alleged absence of an E-way bill are illegal. The Court directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner.
Facts
Mahalaxmi Traders (petitioner) booked goods for transport from Gorakhpur to M/s. R.K. Trading, Delhi. The goods were dispatched on April 3, 2018. During transit, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 at Fatehgarh. The reason for detention was the alleged absence of an E-way bill. The petitioner submitted that the E-way bill, downloaded on April 4, 2018, at 2:06 p.m. under the CGST Act, was generated before the vehicle's detention. The goods were subsequently seized under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, and a penalty notice was issued under Section 129(3) on April 4, 2018. The petitioner provided the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bill as evidence.
Key Issues
1. Whether the detention and seizure of goods and vehicle were justified when the E-way bill was generated prior to the detention, as per Section 129 of the UPGST Act? The petitioner argued that the E-way bill was downloaded on April 4, 2018, at 2:06 p.m., which was before the detention and seizure of the goods and vehicle. They contended that all necessary information was disclosed in the E-way bill, rendering the detention and subsequent seizure illegal. The respondent (State) did not present any arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 652 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahalaxmi Traders 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 Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari for respondent no. 2 and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 to 4. The goods were booked and transported from Gorakhpur to M/s. R.K.
Trading, Delhi, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 03.04.2018 to be delivered at Delhi and in between, the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at Fatehgarh. The objection of respondent no. 4 while detaining the goods was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the E-way bill, which has been downloaded on 4.04.2018 at 2.06 p.m. under the CGST, before the detention of the vehicle. The goods were ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act.
We have perused the relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the wri
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.