Cross Wheels Auto Private Limited Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition challenged two impugned orders passed on 4 July 2023 and 11 August 2023 by authorities under the GST Act in Uttar Pradesh, which pertained to the detention of two-wheeler vehicles transported by the petitioner. The petitioner, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of two-wheelers, held a GSTIN and had placed orders for motorcycles. Tax invoices dated 3 June 2023 were issued for 7 and 41 motorcycles, respectively, and a consignment note along with an e-way bill were generated for the goods. Initially, the assigned driver did not turn up, so a replacement driver transported the goods starting 14 June 2023. The goods arrived at the petitioner’s godown on 15 June 2023, but due to limited space, unloading could not occur until 22 June 2023. On 23 June 2023, the vehicle was intercepted at approximately 2 a.m., physical verification was conducted on 25 June, and the goods were detained on 26 June 2023. An order under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued, and the petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner contended that two-wheelers cannot be sold without proper registration and sale letters, and that the invoices clearly listed the body and engine numbers of each vehicle. The petitioner submitted that all documents, including GPS tracking reports, demonstrated that the goods reached the destination before the e-way bill expired. The delay in unloading was due to the godown’s limited space, and there was no intention to evade tax. The petitioner further argued that mere expiry of the e-way bill could not justify seizure of goods and rejected allegations of multi-use of documents in the case of two-wheelers. Several precedents were cited, including M/s Trimble Mobility Solutions India Private Limited v. State of U.P., Panasonic India (P) Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Falguni Steels v. State of U.P., Shyam Sel & Power Limited v. State of U.P., and M/s Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited v. State of U.P., supporting the position that goods accompanied by proper documents and GPS evidence cannot be seized solely for e-way bill expiry.
Comments are closed.