M/S Sunil Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the controversy was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgments of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and M/s Varun Beverages Limited. In M/s Varun Beverages, it was held that the requirement of an e-way bill was unenforceable during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. Consequently, the seizure of goods and the imposition of penalty were not justified. The Court agreed with this reasoning. The impugned orders dated 22.12.2020 and 12.02.2018 were quashed. The petitioner was granted relief in light of the law laid down in M/s Varun Beverages. Any amount deposited by the petitioner was to be refunded within one month.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sunil Traders, challenged two orders: one dated 22.12.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 and another dated 12.02.2018 passed by respondent no. 3. The latter order imposed a penalty concerning goods transported without an e-way bill during the period of 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and its rules. The petitioner contended that the controversy was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and M/s Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. The State's counsel did not dispute this proposition and conceded that the cited judgments had attained finality.

Key Issues

1. Whether the requirement of an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, read with the Rules framed thereunder, was enforceable during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, thus justifying the seizure of goods and imposition of penalty? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the requirement of an e-way bill was unenforceable during the specified period. They relied on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and M/s Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P., which held that neither seizure of goods nor imposition of penalty was justified under such circumstances. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's proposition and fairly admitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner had attained finality.