E-way bill not required during relevant period, so seizure of goods in transit was unsustainable and quashed.

Goods seized solely for non-accompaniment by an e-way bill could not be detained where the e-way bill requirement was inapplicable during the relevant period. The Court held that, once that legal position applied, the foundation for seizure disappeared and the detention order was unsustainable. The impugned order under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was quashed, and the petitioner obtained relief from the seizure and consequential proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods in transit for want of an e-way bill, when the e-way bill requirement was not applicable during the relevant period, was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were seized solely on the ground that they were not accompanied by an e-way bill. The relevant period fell within the interval for which the requirement of an e-way bill had already been held inapplicable. In view of that legal position, the basis for seizure ceased to exist, and the detention order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The seizure was illegal and the impugned order passed under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained complete relief against the seizure and all consequential proceedings were dropped.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are seized solely for non-accompaniment by an e-way bill during a period when such requirement is not applicable, the seizure order is unsustainable in law.

---