2018 (5) TMI 1030 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 184 (All.) – Seizure of goods with vehicle – goods dispatched without E-way bill – petitioner has furnished the E-way bill before the respondent no.3 prior to the seizure proceedings and seizure order – Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act – Held that: – Once the E-way bill is produced and other documents clearly indicates that the goods are belongs to the registered dealer and the IGST has been charged there remains no justification in detaining and seizing the goods and asking the penalty – the seizure order dated 5.5.2018 as well as the consequential penalty order dated 5.5.2018 quashed – goods with vehicle to be released immediately – petition allowed – decided in favor of petitioner. – Writ Tax No. 763 of 2018 Dated:- 9-5-2018 – Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
No. UP 13 AT 1153 on 4.5.2018. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that though the E-way bill post 1.4.2018 was not clear and the notification issued under CGST/UPGST Act were silent with regard to requirement of E-way bill for inter-state transactions, the petitioner dispatched the goods without generating the E-way bill. While movement of the vehicle and when the vehicle crossed Yamuna Express Way it was intercepted by the respondent no.3 Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-II, Noida at 1.30 a.m. on 5.5.2018 solely on the ground that the goods were not accompanied with E-way bill. The respondent no.3 has proceeded for inspection/physical verification of the goods and for the same he has issued verification report in part-A and part-B on 5.5.2018 itself wherein no time has been mentioned. When the proprietor of the petitioner's firm has received the information about interception of the vehicle, he has immediately generated E-way bill on 5.5.2018 at 11.55 a.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
29(3) are completely without jurisdiction, arbitrary as such are nothing but clearly a misuse of power by the respondent no.3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and 3 others reported in 2018 NTN (Vol.66) 245. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the goods were intercepted at 1.30 a.m. on 5.5.2018 whereas the E-way bill was generated on the same day at 11.55 a.m. which was furnished before the respondent no.3 but reasons best known to the respondent no.3, a seizure order and consequential penalty order has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once E-way bill was generated after interception of the goods, but before seizure order is passed, then the goods cannot be seized as is held by this Court in the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the circular dated 13.4.2018 issued by the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
under Section 129(3). Both the aforesaid orders are passed on 5.5.2018 i.e. before the date which has been indicated in the interception memo being 6.5.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has placed the E-way bill on 5.5.2018 itself the respondent no.3 has illegally proceeded to pass the impugned orders before any physical verification done. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the E-way bill is produced and other documents clearly indicates that the goods are belongs to the registered dealer and the IGST has been charged there remains no justification in detaining and seizing the goods and asking the penalty. In view of the aforesaid facts, we quash the seizure order dated 5.5.2018 as well as the consequential penalty order dated 5.5.2018. We direct the respondent no.3 to immediately release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. – Case laws – Decisi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =