During the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29.03.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act and further challenged order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The counsel for the petitioner 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, submitted that absence of the said Eway bill could not be a reason to seize the goods. Further, during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under the Act was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the present writ petition on the same terms and quashed the impugned orders.
During the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 29.03.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act and further challenged order dated 03.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The counsel for the petitioner 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, submitted that absence of the said Eway bill could not be a reason to seize the goods. Further, during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under the Act was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the present writ petition on the same terms and quashed the impugned orders.