Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 along with appellate order dated 29.04.2019 passed in appeal no. 78/18 of 2017-18- 183 by respondent no. 3.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered Company having TIN No. 09AASCS3995H2ZF. The petitioner placed a purchase order for supply of air conditioners to M/s Prime Enterprises, New Delhi, who charged IGST and issued tax invoices, which were accompanying the goods. The petitioner downloaded the national e-way bill as per rule 138 of the CGST Rules. On the e-way bill, vehicle number was specifically mentioned. When the said goods were on the way from Delhi to Ghaziabad, the same were intercepted on the ground that there is no e-way bill belonging to the State of U.P. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued and security for release of the goods was demanded amounting to Rs. 1,14,124/- and seizure order was passed seizing the goods. Against the seizure order, Appeal No. 78/18 of 2017-18 was preferred for the year 2017-18 under U.P. CGST Act read with rule 129 (3) of the Rules. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected justifying the seizure order, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Per contra, learned standing counsel supports the order and submits that the goods were not accompanying with proper document as prescribed under the Act. More precisely, UP e-way bill was not accompanying the goods and therefore, he tries to justify the impugned order.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, air conditioners were coming from Delhi to Ghaziabad and were intercepted by the Mobile Squad, Noida. On that basis, 9 air conditioners were seized and security, along with equal amount of penalty, amounting to Rs. 1,14,124/- was demanded, which was confirmed upto the appellate authority. The only discrepancy pointed out by the seizing authority and the appellate authority is that U.P. e-way bill was not accompanying the goods. Both the authorities lost sight of the fact that during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, requirement of U.P. e-way bill was not applicable to the transactions of the petitioner and therefore, the seizure, demand of security and penalty cannot be justified.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in LG Electronics India Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2019 NTN (70) 109, in paragraph no. 56, has held that the goods were not required to accompany with UP e-way bill during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. The air conditioners, which were detained by the respondents on 26.03.2018, and thereafter, levy of security and penalty, cannot be justified.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned orders dated 27.03.2018 and 29.04.2019 are hereby quashed. The amount, if any, deposited in pursuance of the impugned orders shall be refunded within a period of one month from today.

10. The writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-, which shall be deposited within a month from today. An affidavit of compliance of deposit shall be filed within two months from today in the Registry of this Court, failing which the matter be listed in Chamber.