9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1007 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - incomplete E-Way bill - Section 129(1) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Held that - In the present case admittedly, all the above details were not filled up or disclosed in the E-Way Bill - the E-Way Bill was incomplete and improper. Any E-Way Bill which is not duly filled up cannot be construed to be a valid document and it would be treated as if the goods are not accompanied by appropriate / valid E-Way bill. Apparently there is a convention of the provision of the Act which mandates that the E-Way bill should be accompany the goods in transit - There is no illegality in seizing goods for violation of provision of the Act. Petition dismissed.
Issues: Seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to incomplete E-Way Bill.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, contending that the E-Way Bill accompanying the goods was duly filled up, even though certain details like vehicle number, driver's name, and address were not provided, which the petitioner argued were optional. The court noted that as per Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, goods in transit contravening the provisions of the Act or Rules are liable for detention or seizure. Rule 138 of the U.P. G.S.T. mandates that the E-Way bill should accompany the goods, and in this case, the E-Way Bill was incomplete as it lacked essential details. The court held that an E-Way Bill not fully filled up cannot be considered valid, and goods without a proper E-Way Bill are deemed to be unaccompanied by a valid document. The court emphasized that the provision of the Act requires the E-Way bill to accompany goods in transit, and the incomplete E-Way Bill in this case did not meet the necessary criteria. Consequently, the seizure of goods for violating the Act's provisions was deemed legal. However, in the interest of justice, the court allowed the release of the goods and the vehicle upon furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee, as specified in Section 129(1) of the Act, to the satisfaction of the relevant authority. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court permitting the release of the goods subject to the conditions mentioned above.
|
