E-way bill unenforceability defeats detention, seizure and penalty for alleged non-compliance during the relevant period.

Detention and penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill were held unsustainable where the e-way bill requirement was not enforceable during the relevant period. The detention of timber and the consequential seizure order failed because the underlying statutory basis for alleged non-compliance did not apply. The appellate rejection on limitation also could not survive once the principal levy and seizure were invalid. The writ petition therefore succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and refund of the deposited amount was directed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure and penalty order passed for transport of goods without an e-way bill could be sustained for the period when the e-way bill requirement was not enforceable, and whether the appellate rejection on limitation could survive.

Analysis: The dispute related to detention of timber and levy of penalty under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax regime for alleged non-availability of e-way bill-01 during the relevant period. The Court noted that the controversy stood covered by earlier binding decisions holding that the e-way bill requirement was unenforceable during the relevant period. Once the very basis for detention and penalty failed, the consequential order of seizure could not stand. In view of that conclusion, the order rejecting the appeal on limitation also could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The seizure and penalty order was unsustainable, and the appellate order rejecting the appeal was also liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and refund of the deposited amount was directed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory e-way bill requirement was not enforceable for the relevant period, detention, seizure, and consequential penalty for alleged non-compliance could not be upheld.

---