9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the requirement of filing the E-way Bill has been suspended by the State Government for the time being. Even otherwise the petitioner has stated in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit that he did obtain the E-Way Bill and he did present it before the authority concerned within two hours but it was not accepted by the respondent-State. In view of the fact that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel appearing for the State. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was carrying goods from Nagpur, State of Maharashtra to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The goods have been seized upon entering the State of Uttar Pradesh on the pretext that the E-way Bill was not presented at the time of seizure of the goods, which were Supari. 3. It is not denied to the State that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d itself and the consequential demand of cash security is not justified. 6. We therefore, direct the respondents to release the goods of the petitioner forthwith subject to deposit of security to the extent of 50% of the value of goods in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee, which will abide by penalty proceedings. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands dispose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
