https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422480 Where goods are transported with the prescribed documents and no discrepancy is found in those documents, seizure cannot be sustained merely because the U.P. e-way bill did not accompany the consignment. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that, for the relevant period, the e-way bill requirement under the U.P. GST regime was not enforceable, so its absence could not lawfully justify detention, seizure, or consequential tax and penalty demands. The seizure and impugned demand orders were quashed. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 12:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422480 Where goods are transported with the prescribed documents and no discrepancy is found in those documents, seizure cannot be sustained merely because the U.P. e-way bill did not accompany the consignment. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that, for the relevant period, the e-way bill requirement under the U.P. GST regime was not enforceable, so its absence could not lawfully justify detention, seizure, or consequential tax and penalty demands. The seizure and impugned demand orders were quashed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 28 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422480