M/S Techno Fabs vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-First Commercial Tax And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the seizure of the petitioner's goods on February 11, 2018, was bad in law. The reasoning was based on the fact that the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to the petitioner's transactions during the period of February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018. This conclusion was directly supported by the Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. The ratio decidendi is that a seizure made for non-compliance with a statutory requirement that was not in force for the specific taxpayer during the relevant period is invalid. Consequently, the impugned seizure order dated February 11, 2018, passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act was quashed, and all consequential proceedings were dropped. The Court allowed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Techno Fabs, had its goods seized on February 11, 2018, while in transit from Kolkata to Budaun. The seizure was based on the absence of an E-way bill. The petitioner contended that during the period of February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018, the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to their transactions. This contention was supported by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. The impugned seizure order was passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of goods on February 11, 2018, for non-compliance with E-way bill requirements was valid, considering the period of alleged non-compliance falls within the timeframe where E-way bills were not mandatory for the petitioner's transactions, as per Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the E-way bill was not applicable to their transactions between February 1, 2018, and March 31, 2018. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., which held that goods were not covered by the E-way bill requirement during this period. Therefore, the seizure on February 11, 2018, was illegal. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.