9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 185 - HC - GSTPenalty imposed with respect to the goods being transported without e-way bill under U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules framed thereunder - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of U.P. and others 2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that Rule 138, as initially enacted and made effective from 29.6.2017 read with Government Notification dated 21.7.2017, prescribing procedure, came into force on 16.08.2017 by Commissioner's Circular dated 22.07.2017 read with Circulars dated 27.02.2017 and 09.08.2017, stood replaced by Rule 138 by Notification dated 31.01.2018 which came into force on 01.02.2018. So far as the matter is squarely covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd, with which it is agreed, the present writ petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to orders passed under U.P. GST Act, 2017 for penalty on goods transported without e-way bill and dismissal of appeal due to delay. Penalty Imposed for Transporting Goods Without E-way Bill: The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for transporting goods without an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, 2017. It was argued that during a specific period, the requirement of an e-way bill was unenforceable, as per a decision of the Division Bench of the Court. The petitioner's appeal against the penalty was dismissed due to a delay beyond the condonable period. The Court, after considering the arguments and the relevant precedent, allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders dated April 26, 2019, and March 20, 2018. The Court directed for the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within one month. Disposition: The High Court, in line with the Division Bench's decision, ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the penalty and dismissing the appeal due to delay. The Court emphasized the enforceability of the e-way bill requirement during the relevant period and the need for timely appeals. The orders passed by the authorities were quashed, and the petitioner was granted relief, including the refund of any deposited amount.
|
