Super INDIA (Global) Logistics LTD vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the seizure order and the consequential penalty notice were illegal and unsustainable. The Court agreed with the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court in Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and others. The Court found that after the amendment of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017, and the introduction of the E-way Bill system, the requirement for a T.D.F. had been rescinded. Since the consignment was accompanied by a valid E-way Bill and other requisite documents, and both the consignor and consignee were registered dealers, the absence of a T.D.F. did not warrant the seizure of goods or the imposition of a penalty. The ratio decidendi is that an E-way Bill, when valid and containing necessary details, supersedes the requirement for a T.D.F. for inter-State movement of goods, especially when the intent to evade tax is not established. The Court quashed the seizure order and the penalty notice and directed the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle upon production of a certified copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Super India (Global) Logistics Ltd, a registered dealer, booked a consignment of 1936 units of biscuits for a consignee, also a registered dealer. The goods were transported from Gwalior (M.P.) to Zirkpur (Punjab) via vehicle No. HR-55 S-7077, accompanied by Challan No. 6037 dated 21.03.2018 and a valid E-way Bill. However, a Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached. The vehicle was intercepted on 23.03.2018 in Uttar Pradesh by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-V, Agra. The seizure order and a subsequent penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, were issued on the grounds of non-compliance with the T.D.F. requirement, despite physical verification revealing no other irregularities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of goods and issuance of a penalty notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, were valid when the consignment was not accompanied by a Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that following amendments to the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017, specifically the notification dated 29.12.2017 introducing the E-way Bill system effective from 01.02.2018, the requirement for a T.D.F. was rescinded. Therefore, its absence did not constitute a violation. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation vs. State of U.P. and others, which held that an E-way Bill and invoice containing requisite details were sufficient, and a T.D.F. was not mandatory in such circumstances. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondent State.