Case Law Details
Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In a recent judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and 3 Others brought to light an issue concerning the detention and seizure of goods during transportation. The court delved into the matter of whether the goods, accompanied by relevant documents including an E-way bill, were lawfully detained by the authorities.
Background: The goods in question were being transported from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre in Lucknow, a registered dealer. However, during transit, the goods were intercepted and detained by the authorities at Kanpur on the grounds of not being accompanied by an E-way bill-01.
Legal Analysis: Upon careful examination of the facts presented, the court observed that the petitioner had indeed obtained an E-way bill under the CGST and UPGST Acts well before the detention of the goods. The relevant documents, including invoices and goods receipts, corroborated this fact. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no irregularity in the transaction.
Court’s Decision: In light of the evidence presented and the legal analysis conducted, the Allahabad High Court rendered its decision. It set aside the seizure order and penalty notice issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act, along with any consequential proceedings. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., ordering the immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle.
Conclusion: The judgment in the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India and 3 Others serves as a significant precedent in ensuring the enforcement of laws governing the transportation of goods. It underscores the importance of compliance with relevant regulations, including the timely issuance of E-way bills. This ruling by the Allahabad High Court reaffirms the principle of legal fairness and upholds the rights of businesses engaged in interstate commerce.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Shri Aloke 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 being booked and transported from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow, which is a registered dealer. The goods proceeded on 24.03.2018 to be delivered at Lucknow and in between, the same was intercepted/detained by respondent no. 4 at Kanpur. The objection of respondent no. 4 while detaining the goods was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill-01.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the E-way bill, which has been issued on 24.03.2018 under the CGST as well as E-way bill-01, which has been downloaded on 28.03.2018 before the detention of the vehicle. The goods are 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 28.03.2018 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 28.03.2018 be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith.