2022 (9) TMI 1205 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith the vehicle - goods seized on the ground that they were not accompanied with the E-way bill - HELD THAT - The issue has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS 2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it has been held that the goods were not covered with the requirement of E-way bill during 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018. The goods in the present case were seized on 11.02.2018 that is only for the reason they were not accompanied with the E-way bill. Since the requirement of the E-way bill was not applicable for the petitioner during the above period, the seizure itself is bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned seizure order dated 11.02.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and all consequential proceedings stands dropped. The writ petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Seizure of goods for not being accompanied by an E-way bill during a specific period, applicability of E-way bill requirement, legality of seizure under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST.

Analysis:

1. Seizure of Goods for E-way Bill Non-Compliance:
The judgment revolves around the seizure of the petitioner's goods on 11.02.2018 due to the absence of an E-way bill during transportation from Kolkata to Budaun. The petitioner argued that the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to their transaction during the period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018. The court referenced a previous Division Bench ruling in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018, where it was established that goods were not mandated to be accompanied by an E-way bill during the specified period. As the seizure was solely based on the absence of an E-way bill, which was not required at that time for the petitioner, the court deemed the seizure unlawful.

2. Legality of Seizure under U.P. GST Act:
The court proceeded to declare the impugned seizure order dated 11.02.2018, issued under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, as invalid and quashed it. By invoking the legal principle established in the aforementioned case law and considering the non-applicability of the E-way bill requirement to the petitioner's transaction during the relevant period, the court concluded that the seizure order lacked legal merit. Consequently, all consequential proceedings stemming from the seizure were dropped, thereby providing relief to the petitioner.

3. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed by the court, thereby setting aside the seizure of the petitioner's goods and nullifying the subsequent proceedings. The judgment underscores the importance of aligning enforcement actions with the prevailing legal provisions and ensuring that seizures are conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations to uphold the rights of the parties involved.