E-Way Bill Not Required for Delhi-Ghaziabad Transport During Feb-Mar 2018, Penalty Order Quashed

The HC quashed seizure and penalty orders against a registered company for lacking a U.P. e-way bill during transport of air conditioners from Delhi to Ghaziabad. While authorities maintained the necessity of a U.P. e-way bill despite the company having a national e-way bill, the Court found that during the relevant period (01.02.2018-31.03.2018), U.P. e-way bills were not required for such transactions, as established in LG Electronics India Private Limited v. State of U.P. The Court ordered refund of any deposited amounts and allowed the petition with costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to seizure order due to absence of U.P. e-way bill accompanying goods during a specific period.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered Company, placed a purchase order for air conditioners with IGST charged by M/s Prime Enterprises, New Delhi. The petitioner downloaded the national e-way bill as required by the CGST Rules, with the vehicle number specified. However, the goods were intercepted on the way from Delhi to Ghaziabad for not having a U.P. e-way bill. A show cause notice was issued, demanding security for release of goods and passing a seizure order. The petitioner's appeal against the seizure order was rejected, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

The learned standing counsel supported the order, arguing that the goods lacked the necessary document as per the Act, specifically the U.P. e-way bill. The seizing authority and the appellate authority confirmed the seizure and penalty, emphasizing the absence of the U.P. e-way bill. However, it was overlooked that during the relevant period, from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of a U.P. e-way bill was not applicable to the petitioner's transactions. The Division Bench in LG Electronics India Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others clarified this exemption in a previous judgment.

Based on the facts and legal precedents, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 27.03.2018 and 29.04.2019. It directed the refund of any deposited amount within a month. The writ petition was allowed with a cost imposed on the petitioner, to be deposited within a month, with compliance affidavit due within two months to avoid chamber listing.

---