9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s Manas Enterprises [2024 (12) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has not justified the seizure proceedings and quashed the proceedings of the same therein. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts that during period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UPGST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was not enforceable, the proceedings pressed against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and as such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. Conclusion - The writ petition is allowed, in favor of the petitioner based on the lack of enforceability of the E-way Bill req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panied with the same. During its movement from Gujarat to Agra, Uttar Pradesh, the goods in transit were intercepted on 18.03.2018 on the ground that the State E-way bill was not accompanied with the same, however, no discrepancy whatsoever was pointed out with regard to the quality and quantity of the goods mentioned in the E-way bill, accompanying the goods in transit, but only on the basis of non-availability of State E-way bill, the present proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 4. He further submits that the issue in hand is already covered by the judgments of this Court passed in the cases of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of UP and others, 2018 UPTC Vol 100, 1206 and M/s Manas Enterprises Vs. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders dated 18.03.2018 and01.10.2020 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner either pursuant to the impugned orders or in pursuance of the direction made by this Court, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
