E-way bill requirement cannot justify seizure or demand for goods moved before the obligation became applicable.

Seizure and a consequential demand under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime could not be sustained where the goods were transported during a period when an e-way bill was not yet statutorily required. The High Court held that an action based solely on absence of an e-way bill fails if the underlying movement occurred before the obligation became applicable. On that basis, the seizure and demand were set aside and relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure and demand order passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ground of absence of e-way bill, were sustainable for the relevant period.

Analysis: The transportation in question fell within the period when, on the admitted position before the State, the goods were not required to be accompanied by an e-way bill. The impugned action was therefore founded on a requirement that was not applicable to the movement of goods during that period.

Conclusion: The seizure and consequential demand were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand or seizure based solely on non-production of an e-way bill cannot be sustained for a period when the statutory e-way bill requirement was not yet applicable.

---