2025 (2) TMI 357 - HC - GST

Seizure of vehicle and the goods of the petitioner - E-way Bill was not present with the goods - HELD THAT - It is admitted to the State-respondents that during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the goods which were being transported by the petitioner were not covered with the requirement of the E-way bill. This view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. Others 2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that the goods were not covered with the requirement of E-way bill during 12.02.2018 to 13.02.2018. The impugned demand made against the petitioner is bad and therefore set aside by this Court - Petition allowed.

Summary

In the case before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner challenged the seizure of their vehicle and goods under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The seizure was executed under order No. 775 dated February 13, 2018, and subsequently upheld by order No. 791 dated February 17, 2018, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, due to the absence of an E-way Bill. The State-respondents conceded that during the period from February 1, 2018, to March 31, 2018, the goods transported by the petitioner did not require an E-way Bill, as affirmed by a Division Bench in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Others). Consequently, the court found the demand against the petitioner to be "bad" and set it aside, allowing the writ petition in alignment with the precedent set in the aforementioned case.