Case Law Details
Surendra Steel Supply Company Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
1. Petitioner-consignor is a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 06/AGMPK6002C1ZV and consignee is also a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The consignee purchased M.S. Bar (mix size) from consignor valued at Rs.10,73,100/-. Under the purchase order the goods were being transported from Haryana where the petitioner’s company is situate to Kanpur, under invoice No.5 CGST @ 9% amounting to Rs.96,579/- and SGST @ 9% amounting to Rs.96,579/- were duly paid by the petitioner which is clearly reflected from the tax invoice filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
2. It is submitted that vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur on 01.04.2018 at about 9-30 a.m. by respondent no. 2 and interception/detention memo was issued on the ground that since the E-Way Bill No.01 is not available as such the physical verification of the goods loaded is to be made and fixed 02.04.2018 for physical verification and inspection at 11-00 a.m.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that E-Way Bill No.01 was generated on 01.04.2018 at about 09-57 a.m. and produced before the respondent no. 2, however, seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘GST Act, 2017’) has been passed on 02.04.2018 at about 8-55 a.m. much before the time fixed for physical verification and inspection of the goods. It is also submitted that it has wrongly been recorded in the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017 that goods were being transported unauthorisedly without any E-Way Bill No.01. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that it does not appeal to reason and logic that when E-Way Bill No.01 was generated on 01.04.2018 at about 09-57 a.m. and the same would not be produced before the authority and the fact to the contrary has wrongly been recorded in order to justify the detention and seizure. It is further submitted that even though E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced by the petitioner but there was no requirement for the same as the Central Government has suspended the requirement of E-Way Bill. During the course of argument, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents has not been able to justify the impugned order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. We are noticing that despite there being no requirement every day petitions are being filed challenging the interception and seizure made by the authorities for want of E-Way Bill No.01.
5. In such circumstances, we require respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad–XI, Kanpur, U.P. to appear before the Court day after tomorrow (13.04.2018) to explain as to under which authority of law he intercepted the vehicle and passed the seizure order despite E-Way Bill No.01 was generated and produced.
6. Considering the facts, effect and operation of the seizure order passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(1) of GST Act, 2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) shall remain in abeyance till 13.04.2018. The respondents are directed to release the seized goods and vehicle forthwith.
