Penalty and seizure challenged over e-way bill requirements not applicable at relevant time allowed

The Allahabad HC allowed a petition challenging penalty levy and goods seizure where the petitioner argued e-way bill requirements were not applicable in UP at the relevant time. The court held that parties cannot be prejudiced by court actions, noting that while the SC had set aside previous orders, it never intended to render assessees remediless. Since unique circumstances beyond the assessees' control caused limitation issues, the State agreed not to raise limitation objections. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits without limitation objections.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of orders under U.P. GST Act, 2017; Compliance with Supreme Court order; Time limitation for filing appeals.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash orders under the U.P. GST Act, 2017, including an order dated 22.11.2021 by the Appeal Authority, an order dated 09.02.2018 by respondent no.4 under Section 129(3) of the Act, and a notice dated 07.12.2019 proposing proceedings under Section 130 of the Act. The petitioner argued that their case was covered by a previous Division Bench pronouncement. However, the Supreme Court, in a related matter, directed the revenue authorities to process claims afresh and set aside all orders passed by the High Court, including pending writ petitions. The petitioner's appeal against the original order was dismissed as time-barred, leading to a unique situation arising from conflicting orders by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court's intention was not to render assessees remediless, despite setting aside High Court orders. The State agreed not to raise objections to limitation for filing appeals due to the unique circumstances. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh without limitation objections. The jurisdictional revenue authorities were directed to issue fresh notices to affected assessees, allowing them to file appeals within ninety days. The communication of this order to all first appellate authorities was mandated to ensure appeals were entertained without limitation objections.

In conclusion, the Court addressed the conflicting orders, ensuring assessees were not prejudiced by the situation. The decision provided a pathway for affected parties to appeal without limitation constraints, emphasizing the importance of justice and fair treatment in legal proceedings.

---