2021 (11) TMI 64 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the UPGST Act, has been rejected on the ground of limitation - requirement of e-way bill under UPGST Act read with Rules framed thereunder - It is contended that the central e-way bill was downloaded on 27.03.2018 at 9.41 pm and the same was accompanying the goods during the transit - HELD THAT - The matter is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/S VARUN BEVERAGES LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS 2021 (10) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 29.03.2018 under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Rejection of appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act on the ground of limitation.
3. Imposition of penalty for transporting goods without e-way bill-01 under the UPGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 29.03.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's contention was that the e-way bill was generated for the transport of timber from Delhi to Sikandrabad, and although the central e-way bill was downloaded and accompanying the goods during transit, the vehicle was intercepted the next day, and an order of seizure was passed. The petitioner argued that the order was never communicated to him, and due to personal reasons, he could not appear before the authority promptly. The High Court allowed the writ petition, relying on previous judgments, and quashed the impugned order dated 29.03.2018.

2. The petitioner's appeal under Section 107 of the UPGST Act was rejected on the ground of limitation by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner contended that during the relevant period, the requirement of e-way bill under the UPGST Act was unenforceable, and therefore, the seizure of goods and imposition of penalty were unjustified. The High Court, after considering the arguments and relying on previous decisions, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 03.09.2020, directing any deposited amount to be refunded within one month.

3. The imposition of a penalty for transporting goods without the e-way bill-01 under the UPGST Act was challenged by the petitioner. It was argued that during the specific period, the requirement of the e-way bill was unenforceable, rendering the penalty unjust. The High Court, after hearing both parties and examining the record, allowed the writ petition based on previous judgments, quashing the impugned orders dated 29.03.2018 and 03.09.2020. The court directed the refund of any deposited amount by the petitioner in accordance with the law within one month.