M/S Creamy Food PVT. LTD vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the GST Council, recognizing the hardship faced by assessees, had postponed the enforcement of the E-way Bill requirement until March 31, 2018, based on its recommendations. Consequently, as there was no mandatory requirement for an E-way Bill on February 17, 2018, the order passed by the respondent authorities intercepting the goods was unsustainable in law. The Court found the petitioner's contention to be legally sound, supported by the prevailing notifications and judicial precedents. The order passed by the respondent was set aside. The writ petition was allowed.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Creamy Food Pvt. Ltd., had goods in transit intercepted by a mobile squad on February 17, 2018. The petitioner contended that an E-way Bill was not required for these goods due to a Central Government notification exempting the requirement until March 31, 2018. The goods were intercepted prior to this exemption period ending. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments in support of their claim. The respondent, State of U.P. and others, did not dispute the legal proposition raised by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the requirement of an E-way Bill was mandatory for goods in transit on February 17, 2018, considering the Central Government's notification exempting this requirement until March 31, 2018 (turning on the interpretation of the notification and its applicability). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the E-way Bill was not required for the goods in transit on February 17, 2018, as per the Central Government notification which exempted this requirement until March 31, 2018. They relied on the decisions in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 NTN (68)-53 and Writ-C No.33211 of 2018 (M/s H.B.L. Power Systems Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others). Respondent's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the State could not dispute the legal proposition advanced by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 87 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Creamy Food Pvt. Ltd Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Rejoinder affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods which was in transit was intercepted by the mobile squade on 17.02.2018. It is next contended that there was no requirement of the E-way Bill in view of the Central Government notification which had exempted till 31th March, 2018. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of M/s Godrej and 2018 NTN (68)-53 and the judgment passed in Writ-C No.33211 of 2018 (M/s H.B.L. Power Systems Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 27.07.2022.
Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition could not dispute the legal proposition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the G.S.T. Council 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.