9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 755 - HC - GSTSeizure order - detention of goods on the ground that State E-way Bill was not present at the time of interception and on the said ground seizure order was passed - HELD THAT - It is not a case of the respondent authority that at the time of interception of the goods in question, the Central E-way bill under the GST Act was not available. Only E-way Bill 01 under UP GST Act was not available with the goods in question however before passing of the penalty order, the same was produced. The issue in hand is not res integra. The issue in hand is squarely covers with the judgements of Division Bench of this Court in the cases of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and M/s Varun Beverages Limited 2021 (10) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Further during period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UP GST Act read with the Rules framed thereunder was not enforceable. The goods in question was detained and seized on 23.3.2018 on the ground that E-way Bill 01- 02 under UP GST Act was not accompanying with the goods. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that Central E-way Bill was not accompanying with the goods in question. Once the said fact is not disputed by the respondent authorities, neither the detention order nor the seizure order nor penalty was justified . The impugned orders dated 24.3.2018 and 1.10.2020 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act 2. Interpretation of E-way Bill requirements during the transition period of the new GST regime Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of orders passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act The petitioner, engaged in the business of electrical accessories, challenged orders dated 01.10.2020 and 24.3.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act. The petitioner's goods were intercepted and detained on 23.3.2018 for not having the State E-way Bill at the time of interception. The petitioner argued that they provided the E-way Bill-01, downloaded on the same day, and questioned the requirement of both Central and State E-way Bills during the transition period from Value Added Tax to GST. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support their case, emphasizing that the penalty appeal dismissal was time-barred. The Standing Counsel defended the impugned orders, stating that proper documents were not with the goods during interception, citing precedents where delay in appeal filing was not condoned. However, the Court found that the Central E-way Bill was available during interception, and the penalty was unjustified as the State E-way Bill was produced before the penalty order. Relying on Division Bench judgments, the Court quashed the impugned orders, allowing the writ petition and directing the refund of any deposited amount. Issue 2: Interpretation of E-way Bill requirements during the transition period of the new GST regime The Court clarified that from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the E-way Bill requirement under the UP GST Act was not enforceable. Despite the absence of the State E-way Bill with the goods on 23.3.2018, the presence of the Central E-way Bill was not disputed. As a result, the detention, seizure, and penalty were deemed unjustified. The Court emphasized that the impugned orders dated 24.3.2018 and 1.10.2020 were not legally sustainable based on the facts and applicable law. The judgment highlighted that the Division Bench precedents supported the petitioner's position, leading to the quashing of the orders and the success of the writ petition.
|
