2021 (10) TMI 1065 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods - absence of E-way bill - Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - For the period 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the condition of E-way bill has been held to be not applicable. The order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 is quashed and all consequential proceedings stands dropped - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 based on the absence of E-way bill.

Analysis:
- The challenge in this case pertains to an order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's goods were seized due to the absence of an E-way bill as required by the rules.
- The main argument put forth by the petitioner's counsel was that the goods were seized solely because of the missing E-way bill, which, according to the counsel, was not a valid reason for seizure.
- The counsel relied on a previous decision of the Court in the case of M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., where it was held that for the period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of an E-way bill was not applicable. This decision has been consistently followed by various benches of the Court.
- Based on the precedent set by the earlier decision, the Court allowed the present petition and quashed the order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017. Consequently, all consequential proceedings were dropped.

This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and the interpretation of statutory provisions in tax matters. It underscores the significance of adhering to established legal principles and decisions while dealing with similar cases involving the interpretation and application of tax laws and rules.