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>Traders Win: GST E-Way Bill Seizure Halted, Goods Released on Non-Cash Security with Future Challenge Rights</h1> <h3>LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others</h3> HC ruled on GST E-Way Bill dispute, ordering immediate release of seized goods upon providing non-cash security. Court directed respondents to file ... Revival of Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - whether Rule 138 of the UPGST Rules, 2017 as it stood originally before the 4th amendment would stand revived with the rescinding of the notifications dated 30/31.01.2018 enforcing the amended Rule 138 of the Rules w.e.f. 01.02.2018 with regard to the E-Way Bill? - Held that: - respondents may file counter affidavit within a month - any order which is passed pursuant to the SCN will be subject to decision of this writ petition and at the same time the petitioner would also at liberty to challenge it in the appropriate forum. Issues:1. Seizure of goods for lack of E-Way Bill.2. Interpretation of Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.3. Release of seized goods and vehicle pending proceedings.Analysis:1. The petitioner's goods were seized on 16.03.2018 due to the absence of an E-Way Bill. The primary issue before the court is to determine the legality of this seizure and subsequent actions based on the provisions of Rule 138 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.2. The crux of the matter revolves around the interpretation of Rule 138 of the said Rules, specifically in light of the amendments made to it. The court is tasked with deciding whether the original version of Rule 138, predating the 4th amendment, would come back into effect following the withdrawal of notifications enforcing the amended Rule 138 from 30/31.01.2018 onwards.3. In response to the submissions from both parties, the court has directed the Special Counsel for the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a month. Following this, the petitioner is granted two weeks to file a rejoinder affidavit. The court has scheduled the case for admission/final disposal after this period. Meanwhile, the court has ordered the immediate release of the petitioner's seized goods and vehicle upon providing security in a form other than cash or bank guarantee, including an indemnity bond covering the value of the seized goods.4. Additionally, the court has stipulated that any future orders resulting from show cause notices will be subject to the decision of this writ petition. The petitioner is also granted the liberty to challenge such orders in the appropriate forum. The petitioner is allowed to respond to the show cause notice by 24.03.2018, provided a final order has not been issued by then.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of goods seizure, Rule 138 interpretation, and the release of seized goods pending further proceedings, ensuring a fair and balanced approach to the legal matters at hand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
