E-way bill circular cannot revive a rescinded notification; seizure and penalty fail absent material showing tax evasion.

A circular could not revive an e-way bill notification that had been superseded and later rescinded under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime, because administrative instructions cannot override the statutory scheme or perform a legislative function. Where goods were accompanied by the invoice and e-way bill and there was no material to indicate tax evasion, the seizure was arbitrary and illegal; the consequential penalty proceedings also failed because they depended on the invalid seizure. The impugned seizure was annulled and the connected proceedings fell with it.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner's circular could revive or continue an e-way bill notification that had been superseded or rescinded under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime; (ii) whether the seizure and the consequential penalty proceedings were sustainable when the goods were accompanied by documents and there was no material to infer evasion of tax.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner's circular could revive or continue an e-way bill notification that had been superseded or rescinded under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime.

Analysis: The notifications governing e-way bills were successively amended and rescinded. Once the relevant notification stood superseded and the later notification was also rescinded, the earlier e-way bill arrangement could not be treated as revived merely by a circular. The Commissioner's power under the Act was confined to issuing instructions for proper implementation and could not be used to override the statutory scheme or to perform a legislative function by reviving a rescinded notification.

Conclusion: The circular could not validly revive the rescinded notification and was ineffective to that extent.

Issue (ii): whether the seizure and the consequential penalty proceedings were sustainable when the goods were accompanied by documents and there was no material to infer evasion of tax.

Analysis: The goods were being moved from Ahmedabad to Meerut with the requisite invoice and Gujarat e-way bill. On these facts, there was no basis to infer that the movement was in contravention of the GST law or that it was intended to evade tax. The seizure order was therefore arbitrary and illegal. Once the seizure itself was set aside, the penalty proceedings, being consequential, could not survive independently.

Conclusion: The seizure and the consequential penalty proceedings were unsustainable and were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned seizure was annulled, and the connected proceedings based on it fell with it.

Ratio Decidendi: A circular cannot revive a rescinded statutory notification, and seizure under the GST transit provisions cannot be sustained in the absence of material showing contravention or intention to evade tax; consequential penalty proceedings fail when the foundational seizure is illegal.

---