2025 (2) TMI 882 - HC - GST

Court Quashes Orders Under U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 Due to Non-Enforceability of State E-way Bill for 2018 Period.

M/s S.P. Fabricreators Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others

The Allahabad HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, due to the non-enforceability of the State ... Seeking quashing of order passed u/s 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - E-way bill did not accompany the goods in transit - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the case in hand, at the time of interception of the goods in transit, tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty was accompanied therewith and only the State E-way bill under UPGST Act was not available along with it, due to which, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The issue in hand is no longer res-integra as the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s Manas Enterprises [2024 (12) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has not justified the seizure proceedings and quashed the proceedings of the same therein. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts that during period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the requirement of E-way Bill under UPGST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was not enforceable, the proceedings pressed against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and as such, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. Conclusion - The writ petition is allowed, in favor of the petitioner based on the lack of enforceability of the E-way Bill requirement during the relevant period. Petiiton allowed. The case before the Allahabad High Court involved a writ petition where the petitioner sought relief against an order passed under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The main issues considered in this judgment were the validity of the impugned order and the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The key legal question revolved around the enforcement of the E-way Bill requirement under the UPGST Act during a specific period.The petitioner had purchased goods from Gujarat and was transporting them to Uttar Pradesh when the goods were intercepted due to the absence of a State E-way bill. The petitioner argued that the requirement of the E-way Bill during the relevant period was not enforceable, citing previous judgments of the Court in similar cases. The respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders.The Court examined the facts of the case and noted that at the time of interception, the tax invoice, Central E-way bill, and builty were present, but the State E-way bill was missing. The Court referred to previous decisions, including the cases of M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and M/s Manas Enterprises, where it was held that the seizure proceedings based on the absence of a State E-way bill were not justified during the specified period.In its analysis, the Court emphasized that the requirement of the E-way Bill under the UPGST Act was not enforceable from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were deemed to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner.In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the petitioner based on the lack of enforceability of the E-way Bill requirement during the relevant period. The Court's decision was guided by established legal principles and precedents, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and the refund of the deposited amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.