9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct from 01.04.2008. At the time of detention of the goods, there was no requirement for carrying central e-way bill. Therefore, the goods cannot/should not be seized or penalty/tax could not be legally demanded. The Division Bench of this Court in 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] has held that during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 06.01.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act (Annexure-2, 3, 4 6 to the writ petition, respectively); IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to refund the amount of ₹ 2,16,000/- along with interest to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Proprietorship firm and duly registered under the U.P. Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). In the normal course of business, the petitioner purchased concrete groove, cutting machine and diamond blade from M/s Extreme Engineering Center. The aforesaid goods, while in transit from Aurangabad (Maharashtra) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not accompanying the goods. On close, scrutiny of the record reveals that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, requirement for central e-way bill was implemented with effect from 01.04.2008. At the time of detention of the goods, there was no requirement for carrying central e-way bill. Therefore, the goods cannot/should not be seized or penalty/tax could not be legally demanded. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. Others reported in 2018 UPTC (100) 1206 has held that during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
