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>Court Invalidates Order Seizing Goods Over E-way Bill Issue</h1> <h3>M/s Jasvant Singh Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others</h3> M/s Jasvant Singh Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others - TMI Issues:1. Validity of the impugned order dated 16.02.20192. Acceptance of the appeal filed by the petitioner3. Legality of the interception memo dated 06.01.2018 and consequential orders4. Refund of the amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- along with interestIssue 1: Validity of the impugned order dated 16.02.2019The petitioner sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2019 passed by respondent no. 3. The petitioner, a Proprietorship firm registered under the U.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, had purchased goods that were intercepted en route from Aurangabad to Kanpur Dehat. The goods were seized for not having a U.P. e-way bill. The Court noted that the requirement for a central e-way bill in Uttar Pradesh was effective from 01.04.2008, whereas the goods were seized in January 2008, rendering the seizure unjustified. Citing precedent cases, the Court held the impugned order invalid and quashed it.Issue 2: Acceptance of the appeal filed by the petitionerThe petitioner requested a writ mandating respondent no. 3 to accept the appeal filed by them. The Court observed that all required documents under the CGST and IGST Act were with the goods, and no discrepancy was found. As the central e-way bill was not mandatory at the time of seizure, the Court found no legal basis for the seizure or the demand for tax and penalty. Relying on legal precedents, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the authorities to refund any amount deposited pursuant to the impugned orders.Issue 3: Legality of the interception memo dated 06.01.2018 and consequential ordersThe petitioner challenged the interception memo dated 06.01.2018 and subsequent orders issued under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that the seizure of goods and imposition of penalty were unjustified as the central e-way bill requirement was not applicable at the time of interception. Referring to previous judgments, the Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and therefore quashed them.Issue 4: Refund of the amount of Rs. 2,16,000/- along with interestThe petitioner sought a writ for the refund of Rs. 2,16,000/- along with interest. The Court, after analyzing the facts and legal provisions, allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders within one month. The judgment emphasized the non-applicability of the central e-way bill requirement at the time of interception, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and the refund directive.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
