M/S Varun Beverages Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing both the order dated 21.02.2018 and the appellate order dated 03.11.2018. The Court found that the matter was squarely covered by a previous Division Bench decision in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (supra), with which the present bench agreed. This decision likely established that the e-way bill provisions were not enforceable during the period in question, thus invalidating the penalty imposed for non-compliance. The Court directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded within one month. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Varun Beverages Limited, challenged two orders: one dated 21.02.2018 by the Assistant Commissioner Incharge (Mobile Squad-2), Chandauli, imposing penalty for goods transported without an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, and another dated 03.11.2018 by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-I, Commercial Tax, Zone-I, Varanasi, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the first order due to delay. The petitioner argued that the requirement of an e-way bill was unenforceable during the period of 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, making the seizure and penalty unjustified. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the imposition of penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, is valid for the period between 01.02.2018 and 31.03.2018? (Question of law, concerning the enforceability of e-way bill provisions). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the e-way bill requirement was unenforceable during the specified period, relying on the Division Bench decision in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of U.P. and others. Consequently, they contended that neither the seizure of goods nor the imposition of penalty was justified. They also highlighted that their appeal was dismissed solely on grounds of delay in filing. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1670 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Varun Beverages Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.B.Tripathi Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Apoorv Hajela, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
Challenge has been raised to the order dated 03.11.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-I, Commercial Tax, Zone-I, Varanasi under Section 107(4) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 and also the order dated 21.02.2018 passed by respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner Incharge (Mobile Squad-2), Chandauli.
By the impugned order dated 21.02.2018, penalty has been imposed with respect to the goods being transported without e-way bill under U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules framed thereunder.
Relying on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 U.P.T.C.[Vol.100]- 1206, it has been submitted, during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill und
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.