2023 (1) TMI 241 - HC - GST

GST Goods Seizure Invalidated: No E-Way Bill Requirement Existed on Specified Date, Penalty Orders Overturned

HC allowed writ petition challenging GST goods seizure and penalty orders. Court found no e-way bill requirement was applicable on 13.03.2018 based on GST ... Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - case of the petitioner is that before the goods were being transported e-way bill was generated on 13.03.2018 which was valid upto 15.03.2018; the goods were transported from Mohali to Ghaziabad and same were intercepted at Shamli on 13.03.2018 and seizure order was passed on the same day i.e. 13.03.2018 under Section 129 (1) of U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act - HELD THAT:- The requirement of e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was postponed by GST Council noticing the hardship faced by the assessees. The coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S H.B.L. POWER SYSTEMS LTD THRU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. DEPT OF TAX AND REGISTRATION AND ORS [2022 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] relying upon the recommendation of GST Council had held that there was no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018 - In the present case, as the goods were intercepted by the mobile squad on 13.03.2018, the recommendation of the GST Council is applicable and there is no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018. Moreover, the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench is applicable and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as given by the co-ordinate Bench in M/s H.B.L.Power Systems Ltd. Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to order dated 20.03.2021 and 01.07.2020 regarding seizure of goods and penalty under GST Act.Analysis:The writ petition challenged the order dated 20.03.2021 and 01.07.2020 related to the seizure of goods and penalty under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Act of 2017, contended that an e-way bill was generated before transporting goods, which were intercepted and seized on 13.03.2018. A penalty order was subsequently passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act of 2017 on 01.07.2020, and an appeal against this order was rejected on 20.03.2021.The petitioner argued that the requirement of an e-way bill until 31.03.2018 was postponed by the GST Council due to hardships faced by assesses. Referring to a previous decision of a coordinate Bench in a similar case, the petitioner claimed that the case at hand fell within the ambit of the said decision. The Court noted that the recommendation of the GST Council, as per the previous decision, stated that there was no requirement for an e-way bill until 31.03.2018. Since the goods were intercepted on 13.03.2018, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the previous decision and that there was no requirement for an e-way bill until the specified date.Based on the above analysis, the Court set aside the impugned orders dated 20.03.2021 and 01.07.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, respectively. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.