M/S Axpress Logistics INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the seizure and consequential proceedings were irregular. It found that the petitioner had downloaded the E-way bill under the UPGST Act much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle. The downloaded E-way bill contained all the necessary information. Based on this finding, the Court concluded that there was no irregularity in the transaction. Consequently, the seizure order and the penalty notice dated March 28, 2018, issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the UPGST Act, along with the subsequent proceedings, were set aside. The Court directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., was transporting goods from Panvel, Maharashtra to a registered dealer in Lucknow. The goods were dispatched on March 24, 2018. During transit, the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 (an authority under the UPGST Act) at Kanpur on March 28, 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 March 24, 2018, and an E-way bill-01 was downloaded on March 28, 2018, prior to the detention. Despite this, the goods were seized under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the detention and seizure of goods were justified when an E-way bill under the CGST Act was issued and an E-way bill-01 under the UPGST Act was downloaded prior to the detention, as required by the relevant provisions of the UPGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the E-way bill under the CGST Act was issued on March 24, 2018, and the E-way bill-01 under the UPGST Act was downloaded on March 28, 2018, before the vehicle was intercepted and detained. They submitted that all necessary information was disclosed in the downloaded E-way bill. Therefore, there was no irregularity in the transaction, and the seizure was unwarranted. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents. It only notes the objection raised by respondent no. 4 at the time of detention regarding the absence of the E-way bill-01.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 602 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd.
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 Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 24.03.2018 to be delivered at Lucknow and in between, the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at Kanpur. 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 24.03.2018 under the CGST as well as E-way bill-01, which has been downloaded on 28.03.2018 before the detention of the vehicle. The goods are ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of U
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.