This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Seizure of goods for mere Non-mentioning of Vehicle No. in E-Way Bill is illegal
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Allahabad High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court)
In the present case, all the documents were accompanied the goods, details are duly mentioned which reflects from the perusal of the documents. Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B of E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to consider and pass an appropriate reasoned order....
My vehicle seized by sales tax department because in the part B section of eway bill my vehicle number was not updated by the Transporter . The vehicle number mentioned in it was the other vehicle number that was collected item from pick up location to hub. The material value is Rs 368000. And the sales tax department is charging tax + penalty amount as 116000. The rest all documents was cleared at the time of transportation. Can anyone suggest any solution .
I am given my consignment to my vendor and we also given eway bill but vehicle owrner changed vehicle no without my knowledge and now vehicle detained due to change vehicle no in ewaybill
please suggest what to do 8080046821
In this case if dealer has appraised the officer that these goods are for further shipment through transport company and the transport is well within 50 kms, the officer may not issue the notice and did not pass the order.
It is clear from the above judgement that the businessman has followed the CGST Act and Rules, but the Officer has not followed the Act and Rules.
In case penal provisions can be initiated against the businessman, why same penal provisions cannot be initiated against the officer of the department for not following the Act and Rules.
There should be accountability on officer and compensation to the businessman for the loss and cost due to the negligence of the officer.