Case Law Details
Shubham Fertilizers and Chemicals Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In a noteworthy decision, the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Shubham Fertilizers and Chemicals Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others, has firmly established that the seizure of goods and the imposition of penalties are not justified when an E-way bill has been generated prior to detention and the appropriate tax has been charged. This ruling sheds light on the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements before taking punitive actions.
The crux of the matter involves the transportation of goods from Chattisgarh to Haryana, intercepted by the authorities in Agra due to the alleged absence of an E-way bill. Contrary to the claims of respondent no. 4, the petitioner demonstrated that the E-way bill had indeed been generated before the detention, negating the grounds for the seizure and subsequent penalty under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act.
The court, upon reviewing the furnished documents including the Invoice, Goods receipt, and E-way Bills, determined that the procedural compliance was met by the petitioner well in advance of the detention. This evidence was pivotal in concluding that the actions taken by the authorities were not justified, leading to the decision to set aside the seizure order, penalty notice, and any consequential proceedings derived from the initial action.
The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in favor of Shubham Fertilizers and Chemicals underscores a critical aspect of the legal framework governing the transport and seizure of goods. It emphasizes the necessity for authorities to meticulously verify compliance with the procedural requisites, such as the timely generation of E-way bills, before proceeding with any form of detention or penalty.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari for respondent no. 1 and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The goods were booked and transported from Chattisgarh to Haryana. The goods proceeded on 09.04.2018 to be delivered at Haryana and in between, the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at Agra. The objection of respondent no. 4 while detaining the goods was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the E-way bill, which has been generated on 07.04.2018 at 10.37 a.m. before the detention of the vehicle. The goods were ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act.
We have perused the relevant documents, namely, Invoice, Goods receipt, E-way Bills etc., which are enclosed as Annexures to the writ petition and found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act has been downloaded by the petitioner, much before the detention and seizure of the goods and the vehicle, disclosing all the necessary informations.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no irregularity in the present transaction and, therefore, the seizure order as well as penalty notice dated 07.04.2018 issued under Sections 129(1) and 129 (3) of the Act as well as the consequential proceedings are hereby set aside.
Writ petition stands allowed.
The goods and vehicle seized on 07.04.2018 be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
Author Bio
