Case Law Details
Rivigo Services (P.) Ltd. Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
From notification No.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 issued by CGST as well as the notification no. 487 dated 26.03.2018 issued under the UPGST Act, it is apparent that both the aforesaid notification are pari-materia and third proviso of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 138 provides that where goods are transported for a distance upto 50 Km within the State from place of business of consignor to place of transporter for further transportation, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in ‘Part B’ of GST e-way bill-01.
As in the case under hand distance was much below within the prescribed limit of 50 km in between the consignors place of business and transport company from where the goods were required to be reloaded in different transport vehicles for their onward journey. Therefore, the entire seizure proceeding is wholly illegal as also consequential penalty proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
