M/S Godrej Consumer Product LTD. vs. State Of U P And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the matter was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), which was followed in M/s Varun Beverages Limited (supra). The Court agreed with the reasoning in M/s Varun Beverages (supra) that during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, read with the Rules framed thereunder, was unenforceable. Consequently, the seizure of goods was not justified, and the penalty imposed could not be sustained. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 25.04.2019. The petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered in M/s Varun Beverages (supra). Any amount deposited by the petitioner was to be refunded in accordance with law within one month. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd., challenged an order dated 25.04.2019 passed by respondent no. 2, which imposed a penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill. The infraction occurred during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. The petitioner argued that the controversy was covered by previous 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. The respondent's counsel did not dispute this proposition and admitted that the aforementioned judgments had attained finality. The impugned order was passed under the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017, read with the Rules framed thereunder.

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, thereby justifying the seizure of goods and imposition of penalty? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended 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. to support their argument that neither the seizure of goods nor the penalty could be sustained. 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 as they were not carried in appeal. Therefore, the respondent did not present any argument against the petitioner's claim.