E-way bill non-carrying cannot justify seizure where the requirement was unenforceable for the relevant period.

Where goods are transported with the prescribed documents and no discrepancy is found in those documents, seizure cannot be sustained merely because the U.P. e-way bill did not accompany the consignment. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that, for the relevant period, the e-way bill requirement under the U.P. GST regime was not enforceable, so its absence could not lawfully justify detention, seizure, or consequential tax and penalty demands. The seizure and impugned demand orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether seizure of goods and the consequential demand of tax and penalty were justified on the ground that the U.P. e-way bill was not accompanying the goods.

Analysis: The goods were being transported with the prescribed documents and no discrepancy was found in those documents. The only basis for seizure was non-accompanying of the U.P. e-way bill. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that for the relevant period the e-way bill requirement under the U.P. GST regime was not enforceable, and therefore absence of such bill could not lawfully sustain detention, seizure, or consequential tax and penalty demands.

Conclusion: The seizure and the impugned demand orders were not sustainable and were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory e-way bill requirement is not enforceable for the relevant period, non-carrying of such bill cannot by itself justify seizure of goods or imposition of consequential tax and penalty.

---