1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court quashes order for lacking E-way bill under UPGST Rules, citing exemption period. Precedents crucial in tax law interpretation.</h1> The Court allowed the petition, quashing the order passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017, due to the absence of an E-way bill. Relying on a ... Seizure of goods - absence of E-way bill - Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- For the period 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the condition of E-way bill has been held to be not applicable. The order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 is quashed and all consequential proceedings stands dropped - petition allowed. Issues: Challenge to order passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017 based on the absence of E-way bill.Analysis:- The challenge in this case pertains to an order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's goods were seized due to the absence of an E-way bill as required by the rules.- The main argument put forth by the petitioner's counsel was that the goods were seized solely because of the missing E-way bill, which, according to the counsel, was not a valid reason for seizure.- The counsel relied on a previous decision of the Court in the case of M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., where it was held that for the period from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the requirement of an E-way bill was not applicable. This decision has been consistently followed by various benches of the Court.- Based on the precedent set by the earlier decision, the Court allowed the present petition and quashed the order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of UPGST Rules, 2017. Consequently, all consequential proceedings were dropped.This judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and the interpretation of statutory provisions in tax matters. It underscores the significance of adhering to established legal principles and decisions while dealing with similar cases involving the interpretation and application of tax laws and rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
