2024 (12) TMI 62 - HC - GST

Detention and seizure of goods - State E-way Bill was not present at the time of interception - 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., 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 and M/S VARUN BEVERAGES LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS 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 18.03.2018 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 18.03.2018 and01.10.2020 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of GST laws regarding E-way bills, legality of detention and seizure of goods, applicability of Division Bench judgments, condonation of appeal delay.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a registered dealer of un-manufactured tobacco, challenged the detention and seizure of goods during transportation due to the absence of a State E-way bill. The petitioner argued that there was confusion regarding the requirement of both Central and State E-way bills during the transitional period of the new GST regime. Citing relevant case law, the petitioner contended that the issue was covered by Division Bench judgments. The respondent, however, supported the impugned orders, emphasizing the necessity of proper documentation during transportation. They also cited cases where delay in filing appeals was not condoned. After considering the arguments, the Court examined the records and noted that only the State E-way bill was missing at the time of interception, which was later produced before the penalty order. The Court found that the requirement of the State E-way bill was not enforceable during a specific period, and since the Central E-way bill was present, the detention, seizure, and penalty were unjustified. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 18.03.2018 and 01.10.2020.

The Court relied on the Division Bench judgments in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and M/s Varun Beverages Limited to support its decision. It emphasized that the absence of the State E-way bill during the specified period did not warrant the actions taken by the authorities. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the concerned authority to refund any deposited amount within one month of the order. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding E-way bills under the GST Act and highlights the importance of adherence to applicable laws and regulations during the transportation of goods to avoid unjustified penalties and seizures.