When E-way bill was downloaded before detention/seizure of the goods disclosing all the necessary informations, there was no irregularity-High Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2321 (2018) (05) HC
The petitioner dealer had filed the instant writ before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the detention of the goods by mobile squad on account of goods not accompanied by e-way bill.
The petitioner had sold Scrap materials after charging CGST & SGST at the prescribed rates raising Tax Invoice. Goods were then handed over to transporter.
As there was confusion with regard to requirement of E-way bill for intra-State transaction in view of the order passed by the Commissioner of State Tax, U.P. Goods & Service Tax, Lucknow under Section 138 (14) of CGST Rules, hence petitioner was under the impression that there is no requirement of E-way bill for the transaction in question.
The vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted/detained by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad solely on the ground that the goods were not accompanied with E-way bill.
Immediately after receiving the information about the said seizure/detention, the petitioner generated E-way bill prescribed under Rule 138 of the CGST Rules and furnished the same before AC, Mobile Squad. However, the goods were ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act.
The petitioner, before the Hon’ble High Court placed the copy of the E-way bill, which was downloaded before the seizure of the vehicle.
The Hon’ble High Court after perusing the Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act had been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary information.
In view of the above, the Hon’ble High Court opined that there was no irregularity in the transaction and, therefore, it set aside the seizure order as well as the penalty notice issued under Section 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act and all the consequential proceedings. Allowing the writ, it was directed that the goods and vehicle seized be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
RBI specifies ‘Related Party’ with respect to bank RBI has issued RBI Credit Risk Management Directions, 2025 defining ‘Related Party’…
Advisory on Filing Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises, 2025 Dear Taxpayers, The relevant declarations issued vide Notification No. 05/2025 –…
FAQs for HSNS Cess Act, 2025 and HSNS Cess Rules, 2026 Q1. Who is required to get registered under the…
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter thrown out at very threshold against case being decided on…
When prior period expenses are not admissible as deduction, following the same principle the prior period income also cannot be…
Supreme Court condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Income Tax Department In a recent…
View Comments
When E-way bill was downloaded before detention/seizure of the goods, there was no irregularity-High Court ,ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2321 (2018) (05) HC
send this copy of judgement through mail.