Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Seizure order has been passed on the ground that at the time of interception the goods were not accompanied with E-way bill.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Rule 138 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 — Goods in Transit — By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the authority of the State of U.P. for issuing the notification dated 21.07.2017 whereby E-way bill-01 has been prescribed for the purposes of import of goods for an amount over and above Rs. 50,000/- from outside the State of U.P. into the State of U.P. under the newly introduced provisions of Goods and Service Tax Laws. The aforesaid  requirement has been prescribed by the State under Rule 138 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules. Petitioner purchased a machinery from Delhi. The supplier dispatched the machinery without intimating the petitioner and the goods was intercepted in transit. Since no e-way bill was accompanied with the goods, the proper officer issued notice u/s 129(3) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that he came to know about the dispatch of the goods only after interception of the goods and immediately after knowing the defect generated e-way bill on same day itself. The petitioner thereafter filed his reply and provided all supporting documents alongwith e-way bill which was generated by it in original. Consignment was seized and penalty was imposed. The sole ground for passing the order was at the time of interception the goods were not accompanied with E-way bill. Allahabad High Court while disposing the appeal held that:—Prompted by judicial decorum and discipline, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for nomination of appropriate larger Bench to decide the following questions of law: "(a) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.08.2017 in U.P. Kar Adhivakta Sangathan (supra), having not noticed the relevant provisions of the IGST Act and the CGST Act and yet affirmed the notification dated 21.07.2017 issued by the State of U.P., does not lay down the correct law and does not constitute binding precedent? (b) Whether the judgment dated 13.04.2018 delivered by another Division Bench at Lucknow in Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation (supra), having not noticed the earlier Division Bench judgment in U.P. Kar Adhivakta Sangathan (supra), can be said to have correctly nullified the impact of the notification dated 21.07.2017 issued by the State of U.P. on the ground that State of U.P. could not have prescribed any E-way bill or TDF in respect of an inter-State transaction under the Goods and Services Tax regime? (c) Whether the State Government is empowered under Rule 138 of U.P. GST Rules to issue a notification prescribing carrying of any forms or documents along with a consignment during inter-State movement? During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods and the vehicle are both lying seized since they were first detained by Mobile Squad Officials. In the interest of justice, we provide that the goods and the vehicle shall stand released forthwith upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond for the value of the tax and penalty levied by the authorities as confirmed by the order of the first appellate authority dated 14.12.2017. In Writ Tax No. 645 of 2018 (M/s Fenasia Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which the petitioner is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of U.P. and whose consignment has been seized on 12.03.2018, we provide that the goods and the vehicle shall be released upon the petitioner furnishing security other than Cash or Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the Mobile Squad Officials. It has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the other issue pertaining to the revival of the earlier notification upon its repeal and thereafter rescission of the repealing provision has already been heard and judgment reserved by another coordinate Bench of this Court. We are consequently not entering into this controversy and would prefer to await the judgment to be pronounced by the coordinate Bench. In Writ Tax No. 157 of 2018, by order dated 08.02.2018, the goods and the vehicle have directed to be released, no interim order is, therefore, required in the matter.[2018] 51 TUD 163 (ALL)