HC refers e-way bill notification validity issue in UP to larger bench

Om Disposals Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)

We are, faced with two judgments given by the Coordinate Benches of this Court with diametrically opposite conclusions:

(a) the earlier judgment in U.P. Kar Adhivakta Sangathan (supra) has affirmed the notification dated 21.07.2017 issued by the State of U.P.,

(b) the judgment dated 13.04.2018 in Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation (supra), while not invalidating the notification, has effectively held that the seizure and penalty imposed upon the petitioner based on the notification dated 21.07.2017 issued under Rules 138 of the U.P. GST Rules was illegal.

While one judgment seems to have not considered relevant statutory provisions, the other judgment seems to have overlooked the earlier judgment which may, otherwise, have constituted binding precedent. In such situation, it may be said that the doctrine of per incuriam applies to both judgments, though in different contexts.

In our considered opinion, in such a situation, it would not be appropriate for us to comment on the correctness of either of the two judgments delivered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court or embark on a third independent course of our own. Judicial propriety requires us to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an affirmative pronouncement on the validity of the notification dated 21.07.2017 and the Circulars issued thereunder (as modified from time to time) in so far as it pertains to the requirement of form E-way bill-01 to be carried for import of consignment valued not more than Rs.50,000/- in a case of inter-State transaction and the legality of seizure/penalty proceedings undertaken by the authorities of the State of U.P. for violation thereof.