https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766335 Proceedings for absence of a State E-way bill during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 were unsustainable where the goods were otherwise accompanied by a tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty, and the only defect was non-availability of the State E-way bill under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime. Relying on earlier binding decisions, the High Court treated the State E-way bill requirement for that period as unenforceable, so the seizure and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction and could not survive. The impugned orders were quashed and the amount deposited pursuant to them was directed to be refunded. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Feb 2025 08:30:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766335 Proceedings for absence of a State E-way bill during 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 were unsustainable where the goods were otherwise accompanied by a tax invoice, Central E-way bill and builty, and the only defect was non-availability of the State E-way bill under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime. Relying on earlier binding decisions, the High Court treated the State E-way bill requirement for that period as unenforceable, so the seizure and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction and could not survive. The impugned orders were quashed and the amount deposited pursuant to them was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws GST Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766335