Case Law Details
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court)
1. In all these writ petitions seizure orders and notices issued under sections 129 (1) and (3), respectively, by various authorities, mainly on the ground that E-Way Bill-01 under U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.G.S.T ACT) read with Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as I.G.S.T. Act 2017) and Rules framed thereunder were not accompanied by Transporters when goods were intercepted within State of U.P. during Intra State or Inter State transportation, have been challenged on the ground that there is no requirement of accompanying said E-Way Bill; provisions of Provincial Statute cannot override provisions of Central Statue and, in any case, omission is only indeliberate and unintentional.
(I) Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 21st March 2018 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-I, Shamli in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 (1) of UPGST Act, 2017 on the allegation that in respect of goods transported by Vehicle No. DL-1LW-5527, aforesaid authority has reason to believe that for evasion of State Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as “SGST”) goods have been transported by said vehicle. Estimated value of goods constituting machines and parts, mentioned in the order is Rs. 9,85,000/-. Petitioner M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited has transported six loading/unloading machines from its manufacturing unit situated at Thane, (State of Maharashtra) through two tax invoices dated 16.03.2018, to its Ghaziabad office, for the purpose of being used at Warehouse of M/s. Alstom Manufacturing India Pvt. Limited, Saharanpur as inter unit stock. Aforesaid goods were transported through M/s. Delhi Bombay Goods Carrier, Mumbai vide GR No. 41448 dated 16.03.2018 by vehicle no. DL-1LW-5527. Petitioner company downloaded Central Government E-Way Bill at its Thane unit for invoice no. B020101800000130 dated 16.03.2018. Due to bonafide omission, no Central E-Way Bill for remaining goods could be downloaded. Aforesaid E-Way Bill was for four items of machines mentioned therein. Remaining two items of machines were subjected to tax invoice no. D020101800000131 but no E-Way-Bill with respect to aforesaid invoice was downloaded. In transit goods were intercepted by respondent authorities on 20.03.2018 and finding that E-Way Bill in respect of Government of U.P. was not available with goods, same were detained. Thereafter, Transporter downloaded said E-Way Bill on 21.03.2018 and presented the same before Assistant Commissioner but on the same date he passed seizure order impugned in present petition. A show cause notice under section 129 (3) has also been issued by Assistant Commissioner, requiring petitioner to show cause up to 28.03.2018 as to why tax and penalty of Rs. 1,87,300/- may not be imposed upon the petitioner. The aforesaid order of seizure has been challenged on the ground that mistake was unintentional, Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass order of seizure as there is no requirement of carrying any other E-Way Bill under U.P.G.S.T Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder.
(II) Writ Tax No. 454 of 2018
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
