M/S S.P.Fabricreators vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

By means of instant writ petition, the following prayer has been made: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 19.05.2018 passed in Appeal No.41/2018 passed by respondent no.3, U/s 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (Annexure No.8 of this writ petition); (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to refund the amount of Rs. 7,24,350 = 00 deposited in pursuance to order no. 1033 dated 19.03.2018 (Annexure No.6 to the accompanying writ petition) passed by respondent no.4 under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act; (iii) .......... (iv) ..........."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased 474 pieces of PVC Flex Sheetings in Rolls from M/s Navratan Specialty Chemicals, Ahmedabad, Gujarat to which a tax invoice dated 16.03.2018 and a builty was issued in which IGST was also charged for the purpose of transportation from State of Gujarat to Agra , U.P. The goods in question were loaded on Vehicle No. RJ-05- GB-1358, for which, the petitioner also generated and downloaded the E-way bill from the GST website, which were accompanied with the same. During its movement from Gujarat to Agra, Uttar Pradesh, the goods in transit were intercepted on 18.03.2018 on the ground that the State E-way bill was not accompanied with the same, however, no discrepancy whatsoever was pointed out with regard to the quality and quantity of the goods mentioned in the E-way bill, accompanying the goods in transit, but only on the basis of non-availability of State E-way bill, the present proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

He further submits that the issue in hand is already covered by the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders.

After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

Admittedly, in the case in hand, at the time of interception of the goods in transit, tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty was accompanied therewith and only the State E-way bill under UPGST Act was not available along with it, due to which, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

The issue in hand is no longer res-integra as the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) and M/s Manas Enterprises (supra) has not justified the seizure proceedings and quashed the proceedings of the same therein.

This Court in the case of M/s Manas Enterprises (supra), in paragraph nos. 9 to 12 has held as under:

Further during period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UP GST Act read with the Rules framed thereunder was not enforceable. The goods in question was detained and seized on 18.03.2018 on the ground that E-way Bill 01-02 under UP GST Act was not accompanying with the goods. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that Central E-way Bill was not accompanying with the goods in question. Once the said fact is not disputed by the respondent authorities, neither the detention order nor the seizure order nor penalty was justified.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders dated 18.03.2018 and01.10.2020 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner either pursuant to the impugned orders or in pursuance of the direction made by this Court, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts that during period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UPGST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was not enforceable, the proceedings pressed against the petitioner are without juri iction and as such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders shall be refunded to him within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad