Case Law Details
Havells India Ltd. Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In the case of Havells India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others, the Allahabad High Court quashed the orders dated 23.12.2017 and 27.02.2019 issued under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act against Havells India Ltd. The goods were detained on 19.12.2017 on the grounds that they were not accompanied by an E-Waybill. However, the petitioner argued that the E-Waybill was downloaded a day before the detention on 18.12.2017, as documented. The court referred to a similar case, Mahalaxmi Traders vs. State of U.P., where it was held that if an E-Waybill was downloaded before the detention and seizure, and all formalities were fulfilled, the detention and seizure were unjustified. Applying the same reasoning, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders against Havells India Ltd. Also Read: GST Authorities Empowered to Detain Goods & Survey Business Premises for Document Verification
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2017 whereby the order was passed against the petitioner under section 129 (3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act as well as the order dated 27.02.2019 whereby the appeal was dismissed.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order was passed detaining the goods on 19.12.2017 mainly on the ground that the same was not accompanied by the E-Waybill. He argues that the E-Waybill was downloaded prior to the detention order on 18.12.2017 which is on record. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 17.04.2018 passed in Writ Tax No.652 of 2018 (Mahalaxmi Traders vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the similar issue was decided by this Court holding that if the E-Waybill has been downloaded prior to the passing of the detention and seizure of the goods disclosing all the necessary formalities, no irregularity was found by this Court in the transaction and on the said ground, the seizure as well as the penalty order and the consequential proceedings were set aside.
In view of the above, I do not see any reason to defer the view taken by this Court in the case of the Mahalaxmi Traders (supra). Thus, following the said judgment and on the ground that the E-Waybill was downloaded prior to the detention order, the writ petiton is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.12.2017 and 27.02.2019 are set aside.
Author Bio
