Heard Shri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the State – respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following, amongst other, reliefs:-

“I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order / information dated 16.02.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition);

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to accept the appeal filed by the petitioner and the same may be decided on merits;

III. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned interception memo dated 06.01.2018, consequential seizure order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 under Section 129(1) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, consequential notice dated 06.01.2018 issued by respondent no. 4 under section 129(3) of UPGST Act and the consequential order 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 Kanpur Dehat, were intercepted/detained on 06.01.2018 and seizure order was passed on the same day and notice under section 129(3) of the Act as well as the consequential orders were passed demanding tax and penalty. The goods were seized on the ground that U.P. e-way bill was not accompanying the goods. The goods were detained and impugned orders were passed directing the petitioner to deposit the amount as mentioned in the impugned orders. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the documents as required under the CGST and IGST Act were accompanying the goods and there was no requirement for central e-way bill to accompany the goods at the time of seizure. He further submits that e-way bill was introduced with effect from 01.04.2008; whereas, the goods in question were intercepted in January, 2008 in gross violation of the provisions of the Act. He prays for quashing of the impugned orders.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the action and the impugned orders passed by the authorities below.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.

Admittedly, the goods in question were coming from Aurangabad (Maharashtra) to Kanpur Dehat. Along with the goods, documents as prescribed under section 7 of the IGST Act were accompanying and no discrepancy, whatsoever, was found in the said documents. The stand taken in the impugned orders is non-compliance as central e-way bill was 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 can the penalty be sustained. Another Division Bench of this Court, following the judgement in M/s Godrej & Boyce (supra), in Writ Tax No. 1670 of 2018 (M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others) has allowed the writ petition. In view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, as cited above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The same are hereby quashed.

The writ petition is allowed.

Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders may be refunded in accordance with law within a period of one month from today.