TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been filed challenging the orders dated 29th March, 2019 and 23rd February, 2018 confirming the seizure of goods on the ground that U.P. E-Way bill was not accompanying the goods. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition has already been decided by this Court in Writ Tax No. 898 of 2019 titled as M/s Jasvant Singh vs. State of U.P. and others. He prays ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed demanding tax and penalty. The goods were seized on the ground that U.P. e-way bill was not accompanying the goods. The goods were detained and impugned orders were passed directing the petitioner to deposit the amount as mentioned in the impugned orders. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the documents as required under the CGST and IGST A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found in the said documents. The stand taken in the impugned orders is non-compliance as central e-way bill was not accompanying the goods. On close, scrutiny of the record reveals that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, requirement for central e-way bill was implemented with effect from 01.04.2008. At the time of detention of the goods, there was no requirement for carrying central e-way bill. Theref....