https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358965 The court set aside the seizure order of goods due to the absence of an e-way bill during inter-state movement by a trading firm. The court clarified the applicability of UPGST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017, and Central GST in such transactions. It found the seizure order under Section 129(1) of the Act invalid, as the e-way bill requirement for inter-state transactions was enforced post-incident. Emphasizing proper invoicing and registration status, the court directed immediate release of goods and vehicle, highlighting the necessity of correct application of e-way bill rules for inter-state transactions under GST laws. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358965 The court set aside the seizure order of goods due to the absence of an e-way bill during inter-state movement by a trading firm. The court clarified the applicability of UPGST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017, and Central GST in such transactions. It found the seizure order under Section 129(1) of the Act invalid, as the e-way bill requirement for inter-state transactions was enforced post-incident. Emphasizing proper invoicing and registration status, the court directed immediate release of goods and vehicle, highlighting the necessity of correct application of e-way bill rules for inter-state transactions under GST laws. Case-Laws GST Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358965