Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Apurva Hajela, learned counsel for the Revenue and Sri Anant Tiwari, learned counsel for the Union of India.

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017.

Solitary submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the goods have been seized solely on account of absence of E-way bill prescribed under the UPGST Rules, 2017.

Relying on earlier decision of this Court in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others) dated 18.9.2018 as has been consistently followed and applied by various Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, it has been further submitted that absence of the said Eway bill could not be a reason to seize the goods on 23.2.2018. For the period 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the condition of E-way bill has been held to be not applicable.

Following the aforesaid decision, the present petition is also allowed. The order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 is quashed and all consequential proceedings stands dropped.