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>High Court rules in favor of petitioner challenging seizure order under Section 129(3) for E-way bill non-accompaniment</h1> <h3>M/s Modern Traders Versus State Of UP And 2 Others</h3> The High Court examined a case involving the validity of a seizure order and penalty under Section 129(3) related to E-way bill compliance for inter-state ... Seizure of goods with vehicle - goods dispatched without E-way bill - petitioner has furnished the E-way bill before the respondent no.3 prior to the seizure proceedings and seizure order - Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act - Held that: - Once the E-way bill is produced and other documents clearly indicates that the goods are belongs to the registered dealer and the IGST has been charged there remains no justification in detaining and seizing the goods and asking the penalty - the seizure order dated 5.5.2018 as well as the consequential penalty order dated 5.5.2018 quashed - goods with vehicle to be released immediately - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:1. Validity of seizure order and consequential penalty under Section 129(3).2. Compliance with E-way bill requirements for inter-state transactions.3. Jurisdiction and misuse of power by the respondent no.3.4. Interpretation of interception, detention, and seizure in relation to E-way bill generation.5. Legal justification for detaining and seizing goods despite E-way bill submission.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered firm dealing in Iron and Steel goods, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure order and consequential penalty under Section 129(3) issued by respondent no.3. The petitioner dispatched goods to a registered company without generating an E-way bill, leading to interception by respondent no.3 on the grounds of E-way bill non-accompaniment. The petitioner later generated and furnished the E-way bill, but seizure and penalty orders were passed without specifying the time of issuance. The petitioner argued the orders were arbitrary and without jurisdiction, citing a previous court decision and a circular distinguishing interception from detention. The High Court examined the documents and found discrepancies in the orders' timing, indicating malice intent by respondent no.3. The court agreed with the petitioner that once the E-way bill was produced and other documents verified the transaction's legitimacy, there was no basis for detaining or seizing the goods. Consequently, the court quashed the seizure and penalty orders, directing immediate release of the goods and vehicle to the petitioner.This judgment primarily addressed the validity of the seizure order and penalty under Section 129(3) in light of E-way bill compliance for inter-state transactions. It delved into the jurisdictional aspect and alleged misuse of power by respondent no.3, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and timing in such cases. The court's interpretation of interception, detention, and seizure concerning E-way bill generation provided clarity on the legal justifications for detaining and seizing goods despite subsequent compliance. Ultimately, the court's decision favored the petitioner, highlighting the necessity for procedural correctness and adherence to legal requirements in tax-related matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
