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 quashes seizure order, finding E-way bill not required.</h1> <h3>LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 03 Others</h3> The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the seizure of goods unjustified as the E-way bill requirement was not applicable ... Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - detention on the ground that the goods were not accompanied with the E-way bill - Held that:- This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it has been held that the goods were not covered with the requirement of E-way bill during 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018. The goods in the present case were seized on 26.3.2018 that is only for the reason they were not accompanied with the E-way bill - Since the requirement of the E-way bill was not applicable for the petitioner during the above period, the seizure itself is bad in law - petition allowed. Issues: Seizure of goods for not having E-way bill during a specific periodAnalysis:The judgment by the Allahabad High Court pertains to the seizure of goods belonging to the petitioner while in transit from Haryana to Greater Noida on the grounds of not being accompanied by an E-way bill. The petitioner's counsel argued that during the period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of an E-way bill did not apply to the petitioner's transactions. This argument was supported by a previous Division Bench decision in the case of M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. The court in that case had ruled that goods were not required to be covered by an E-way bill during the specified period. As the goods in the present case were seized on 26.3.2018 solely due to the absence of an E-way bill, the court found the seizure to be unjustified.The court concluded that since the E-way bill requirement was not applicable to the petitioner during the relevant period, the seizure of goods was unlawful. Consequently, the court quashed the seizure order dated 26.3.2018 issued under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act and dropped all subsequent proceedings. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, providing relief in favor of the petitioner. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal requirements and the implications of seizing goods without proper justification, emphasizing the need for compliance with relevant laws and regulations in such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
