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 sets aside seizure of goods due to compliance with E-way bill, orders release.</h1> <h3>M/s. Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And 3 Others</h3> The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the seizure of goods for not having an E-way bill. The court found that the petitioner had complied ... Detention of goods with vehicle - Detention on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill-01 - Held that:- The E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations - there is no irregularity in the present transaction and, therefore, the seizure order as well as penalty notice dated 28. 03. 2018 issued under Sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings are hereby set aside - petition allowed. Issues:1. Detention of goods for not having E-way bill2. Seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act3. Validity of seizure order and penalty notice4. Relief sought in the writ petitionAnalysis:1. The case involved the detention of goods being transported without an E-way bill. The goods were booked from Maharashtra to Lucknow, intercepted at Kanpur, and seized under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act. The petitioner provided evidence that the E-way bill had been issued before the detention, thus complying with the legal requirements.2. The High Court examined the relevant documents, including the Invoice, Goods receipt, and E-way Bills, finding that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act was downloaded by the petitioner before the detention of the goods. The court concluded that all necessary information was disclosed, indicating no irregularity in the transaction.3. The seizure order and penalty notice issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act were challenged in the writ petition. After reviewing the facts and documents, the court set aside the seizure order, penalty notice, and consequential proceedings, as there was no fault on the petitioner's part in complying with the legal requirements.4. As a result of the court's decision, the writ petition was allowed, and the goods and vehicle seized on 28.03.2018 were ordered to be released in favor of the petitioner immediately. The judgment provided relief to the petitioner by overturning the seizure order and penalty notice based on the compliance with E-way bill regulations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
