https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425669 Goods transported from Delhi to Ghaziabad during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 could not be detained merely for absence of a U.P. e-way bill, because that requirement was not applicable to such transactions in that period. On that legal basis, seizure of the goods, demand of security, and levy of penalty were contrary to the governing position and could not be sustained. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed, and refund of the amount deposited followed. en-us Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Apr 2025 15:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425669 Goods transported from Delhi to Ghaziabad during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 could not be detained merely for absence of a U.P. e-way bill, because that requirement was not applicable to such transactions in that period. On that legal basis, seizure of the goods, demand of security, and levy of penalty were contrary to the governing position and could not be sustained. The impugned orders were therefore liable to be quashed, and refund of the amount deposited followed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425669