Business Wins Challenge Against GST E-Way Bill Penalty During Transition Period, Seizure Deemed Unjustified

The HC quashed detention and penalty orders against a business for E-way Bill non-compliance during the GST transition period. The court found the seizure unjustified, as the Central E-way Bill was available and State E-way Bill requirements were not enforceable from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018. The ruling directed refund of any deposited amounts, supporting the petitioner's challenge to the orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act
2. Interpretation of E-way Bill requirements during the transition period of the new GST regime

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of orders passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act
The petitioner, engaged in the business of electrical accessories, challenged orders dated 01.10.2020 and 24.3.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act. The petitioner's goods were intercepted and detained on 23.3.2018 for not having the State E-way Bill at the time of interception. The petitioner argued that they provided the E-way Bill-01, downloaded on the same day, and questioned the requirement of both Central and State E-way Bills during the transition period from Value Added Tax to GST. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support their case, emphasizing that the penalty appeal dismissal was time-barred. The Standing Counsel defended the impugned orders, stating that proper documents were not with the goods during interception, citing precedents where delay in appeal filing was not condoned. However, the Court found that the Central E-way Bill was available during interception, and the penalty was unjustified as the State E-way Bill was produced before the penalty order. Relying on Division Bench judgments, the Court quashed the impugned orders, allowing the writ petition and directing the refund of any deposited amount.

Issue 2: Interpretation of E-way Bill requirements during the transition period of the new GST regime
The Court clarified that from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018, the E-way Bill requirement under the UP GST Act was not enforceable. Despite the absence of the State E-way Bill with the goods on 23.3.2018, the presence of the Central E-way Bill was not disputed. As a result, the detention, seizure, and penalty were deemed unjustified. The Court emphasized that the impugned orders dated 24.3.2018 and 1.10.2020 were not legally sustainable based on the facts and applicable law. The judgment highlighted that the Division Bench precedents supported the petitioner's position, leading to the quashing of the orders and the success of the writ petition.

---