M/S Century Rayon vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the seizure order and penalty notice were unjustified. Upon perusing the relevant documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills, the Court found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act had been downloaded by the petitioner much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle. This E-way bill disclosed all the necessary information. Consequently, the Court found no irregularity in the transaction. The seizure order and the consequential proceedings were set aside. The goods and vehicle seized were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Century Rayon, was transporting goods from Maharashtra to its Varanasi Depot. The goods were intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 in Varanasi on 17.03.2018. The reason for detention was the alleged absence of an E-way bill-01. The petitioner contended that an E-way bill under the CGST Act was issued on 17.03.2018, and an E-way bill-01 was downloaded on 22.03.2018, prior to the detention. Subsequently, the goods were seized under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, and a penalty notice was issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act on 22.03.2018. The petitioner challenged these actions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the detention and seizure of goods were justified when the petitioner had downloaded the E-way bill-01 prior to the interception, as required under the UPGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the E-way bill-01 was downloaded on 22.03.2018, before the detention of the vehicle, and contained all necessary information. They relied on the E-way bill issued under CGST and the downloaded E-way bill-01 as evidence of compliance. They asserted that no irregularity existed in the transaction. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, their action of detaining and seizing the goods implies a contention that the E-way bill-01 was not in compliance or was absent at the time of interception.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 623 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Century Rayon Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari for respondent no. 1 and Shri C.B.
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. The goods were being booked and transported from Murbad Road, Sahad & Kalyan, Sahad, District Thane, Maharashtra to M/s. Centaury Rayon, Varanasi Depot, CK 5/1, Thatheir Bazar, Varanasi, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 17.03.2018 to be delivered at Varanasi and in between the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at Varanasi. The objection of respondent no. 4 while detaining the goods was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill-01. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the E- way bill, which has been issued on 17.03.2018 under the CGST as well as E-way bill-01, which has been downloaded on 22.03.2018 before the detention of the vehicle. The goods are ultimately seized under Section 129(1)
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.