E-way bill requirement inapplicable for the relevant period, so detention, seizure, and penalty for non-carrying could not stand.

Goods transported from Delhi to Ghaziabad during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 could not be detained merely for absence of a U.P. e-way bill, because that requirement was not applicable to such transactions in that period. On that legal basis, seizure of the goods, demand of security, and levy of penalty were contrary to the governing position and could not be sustained. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed, and refund of the amount deposited followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention and seizure of goods, along with demand of security and penalty, was sustainable when the goods were being transported during the period when a U.P. e-way bill was not required.

Analysis: The goods were transported from Delhi to Ghaziabad and were intercepted on 26.03.2018. The only discrepancy found by the authorities was the absence of a U.P. e-way bill. The Court held that for the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of a U.P. e-way bill was not applicable to such transactions. The seizure, demand of security, and levy of penalty were therefore contrary to the applicable legal position. The Court also relied on the view already taken that goods transported during this period were not required to accompany a U.P. e-way bill.

Conclusion: The detention, seizure, security demand, and penalty were not justified and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the relief of quashing the orders and refund of the amount deposited followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing e-way bill requirement was not applicable for the relevant period, detention and consequential penalty for non-carrying of a U.P. e-way bill cannot be sustained.

---