2021 (10) TMI 429 - HC - GST

High Court quashes penalty for e-way bill violation, orders refund

The High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed for transporting goods without an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, ... E-way bill requirement - unenforceability of statutory rules in the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 - seizure of goods - penalty under U.P. GST Act, 2017 - refund of amounts depositedE-way bill requirement - unenforceability of statutory rules in the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 - seizure of goods - penalty under U.P. GST Act, 2017 - refund of amounts deposited - Validity of seizure and penalty imposed for transport of goods without e-way bill during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 and entitlement to refund of amounts deposited - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd, which held that the requirement of an e-way bill was unenforceable for the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. Applying that precedent, the impugned order imposing penalty and the order authorising seizure were quashed. Because the statutory requirement was held unenforceable for the specified period, neither the seizure of goods nor the penalty could be sustained. The Court also directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded in accordance with law within one month.Impugned orders dated 21.02.2018 and 03.11.2018 quashed; deposited amounts to be refunded within one month.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; orders imposing penalty and authorising seizure for non-possession of e-way bill during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 quashed in view of binding Division Bench precedent, and any amounts deposited ordered to be refunded in accordance with law within one month. Issues: Challenge to penalty imposed for transporting goods without e-way bill under U.P. GST Act, 2017.In this judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, the petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for transporting goods without an e-way bill under the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on a previous decision of the Division Bench of the Court, arguing that during a specific period, the requirement of an e-way bill was unenforceable. The petitioner's appeal against the penalty was dismissed due to a delay beyond the condonable period. The Court, after hearing both parties and considering the precedent, allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 03.11.2018 and 21.02.2018, stating that the matter was covered by the previous decision. The Court directed the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within one month in accordance with the law. The judgment provides clarity on the enforcement of e-way bills under the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and highlights the importance of timely appeals in tax matters to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds.