TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of petitioner in jurisdiction & E-Way Bill challenge, quashes seizure order.</h1> <h3>M/s Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Private Ltd. Versus State of Up And 3 Others</h3> The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case involving challenges to jurisdiction, seizure of goods in transit, and the validity of ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - the details with regard to the vehicle are not mentioned and the same are being mentioned subsequently after downloading the E-Way Bill in handwriting - Held that:- There are no irregularity in the transaction in question, for the reason, that till the downloading of the E-Way Bill the transport company and the vehicle was not engaged and the same has been engaged subsequently therefore the details with regard to the vehicle number has been mentioned by hand - since the petitioner is a registered dealer and the invoices clearly indicates the charge of IGST and Central Cess, there are no irregularity in the transaction in question, hence, the goods and the vehicle seized on 27th March, 2018 by the respondent no. 4 are directed to be released forthwith - petition allowed. Issues: Challenge to jurisdiction of authorities, Seizure of goods in transit, Validity of E-Way Bill, Necessity of vehicle details on E-Way BillThe judgment by the Allahabad High Court addressed multiple issues raised in a writ petition. Firstly, the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of certain respondents and the seizure of goods in transit from Kanpur to Bihar against duly issued invoices. The petitioner contended that the invoices and goods receipt contained all necessary details, including tax information. The main contention was the absence of vehicle details on the E-Way Bill at the time of downloading, which were later added by hand after engagement of the transport company and vehicle.Upon hearing the arguments, the Court found no irregularity in the transaction. It noted that the engagement of the transport company and vehicle occurred after the E-Way Bill was downloaded, justifying the subsequent addition of vehicle details by hand. The Court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that mentioning transport company or vehicle details at the time of E-Way Bill download was not mandatory, supporting the release of the seized goods and vehicle.The Court emphasized the petitioner's status as a registered dealer and the clarity of invoices regarding IGST and Central Cess charges. Consequently, it ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the seizure order and associated notice. The judgment highlighted that the actions of the seizing authority were unfounded, given the compliance with relevant tax laws and the procedural aspects of E-Way Bill generation.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the immediate release of the goods and vehicle seized on 27th March 2018. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements while recognizing the petitioner's adherence to tax regulations, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
