https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389628 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the seizure and penalty imposed for the absence of an e-way bill were illegal as the requirement for an e-way bill was not in effect at the time of interception. The court invalidated notifications issued under the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, stating that only the Central Government had the authority to mandate such requirements for inter-state transactions. The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was granted a refund of any amount paid, with the writ petition allowed. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Mar 2025 16:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389628 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the seizure and penalty imposed for the absence of an e-way bill were illegal as the requirement for an e-way bill was not in effect at the time of interception. The court invalidated notifications issued under the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, stating that only the Central Government had the authority to mandate such requirements for inter-state transactions. The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was granted a refund of any amount paid, with the writ petition allowed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389628