Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 29th March, 2019 and 23rd February, 2018 confirming the seizure of goods on the ground that U.P. E-Way bill was not accompanying the goods.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition has already been decided by this Court in Writ Tax No. 898 of 2019 titled as M/s Jasvant Singh vs. State of U.P. and others. He prays for quashing of the impugned orders.

The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner has not been disputed by learned Standing counsel.

This Court in Writ Tax No. 898 of 2019 has observed as follows:-

“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 in same terms.

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