M/S Atul Iron Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that the absence of an E-way bill for the period between 1.2.2018 and 31.3.2018 could not be a ground for seizing goods. This finding was based on the precedent set by this Court in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others), which had been consistently followed. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017, and dropped all consequential proceedings. Any amount deposited by the petitioner was to be refunded in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions regarding E-way bills, when held not applicable for a specific period by a High Court, cannot be the basis for penal actions like seizure.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Atul Iron Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 1.5.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Aligarh, under Section 107 of the UP GST Act. The parties agreed that the matter was covered by a previous Division Bench judgment in Writ Tax No. 356 of 2018, M/s Loverly Traders Vs. State of UP. This earlier judgment dealt with an order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017, where goods were seized solely due to the absence of an E-way bill. The revenue did not dispute the facts presented by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the absence of an E-way bill, for the period 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, could be a valid reason for seizing goods under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Rules, 2017, as per the petitioner's contention. The petitioner argued, relying on the decision in M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., that the E-way bill requirement was not applicable for the specified period. The revenue did not present any counter-argument on this issue.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1334 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Atul Iron Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 1.5.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), State Tax, Aligarh under Section 107 of the UP GST Act.
Counsel for the parties, at the very outset, state that the matter is covered by the Judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Tax No. 356 of 2018, M/s Loverly Traders Vs.
State of UP and three others, passed on 1.10.2021, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Apurva Hajela, learned counsel for the Revenue and Sri Anant Tiwari, learned counsel for the Union of India.
Challenge has been raised to the order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017. Solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the goods have been seized solely on account of absence of E-way bill prescribed under the UPGST Rules, 2017. Relying on earlier decision of this Court in Writ Tax No.
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.