2017 Taxo.online 50
WRIT TAX No. – 767 of 2017 dated 16.11.2017
M/S Jai Maa Traders & Ors.
Commissioner Commercial Tax, U.P. & Ors.
2017
GST
Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
CGST Rules
Rule 138
Abhinava Upadhya, Justice & Ashok Kumar, Justice
In favour of assessee
High Court
Allahabad
Absence of E-way bill – Goods seized – for not being accompanied with E-way bill – A notification issued in this regard also recites at the time of interception the authorities will allow the dealer to download e-way bill – If e-way bill is downloaded no further action would be taken – Petitioner downloaded and produced the same – Held: – Since the only allegation against the petitioners is of non- production of e-way bill, which the petitioners had produced before the authority – The Court is of the view that the goods and vehicle be released upon the petitioners furnishing security, other than cash and bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Nar Singh
Respondent: – C.S.C.
Order: –
It appears that the petitioners’ description in the list of fresh cases has wrongly been shown as “M/S Jal Maa Traders Thru’ Its Prop. & Another”, whereas it should be “M/S Jai Maa Traders Thru’ Its Prop. & Another”.
The Computer Section is directed to correct the description of the petitioners as “M/S Jai Maa Traders Thru’ Its Prop. & Another”.
The petitioner no. 1 is a registered dealer with registered office at Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. On 2.11.2017 the petitioner was transporting wall putti from Alwar, Rajasthan. In Gorakhpur at 8:30 p.m. the Vehicle No. UP 25 B.T. 0695 was intercepted by the authorities. The grounds for interception and subsequent seizure was that the consignment of goods was not accompanied by ‘e-way’ bill which is a necessary requirement.
It is to be noted that the notification which requires to accompany e-way bill also recites that in case at the time of interception the e-way bill is not present with the goods, the authorities will allow the dealer to download e-way bill and in case the said e-way bill is downloaded then no further action would be taken. In the present case, however, we find that before the seizure could be made on 3.11.2017 at 2:00 p.m. the dealer had already downloaded and produced the e-way bill before the authority at 8:40 p.m. on 2.11.2017. Since the only allegation against the petitioners is of non production of e-way bill, which the petitioners had produced before the authority, we are of the view that the goods and vehicle be released forthwith upon the petitioners furnishing security, other than cash and bank guarantee, to the satisfaction of the authority concerned.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
