Hira Lal Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P.
Date: January 30, 2024
Subject Matter
During the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under U.P. GST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was unenforceable
Summary
The Allahabad High Court addressed penalties imposed under the U.P. GST Act for transporting goods without an e-way bill. The petitioner argued that during the mentioned period, the requirement for e-way bills was unenforceable, referencing a precedent from the court. The High Court concurred with the petitioner’s stance, emphasizing that during the mentioned period, the enforcement of e-way bills was not legally tenable. The penalties imposed on the petitioner for transporting goods without an e-way bill were deemed unjustified, and procedural irregularities in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal further supported the quashing of penalties. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the penalty orders and directing the refund of any deposited amounts by the petitioner within one month.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated April 26, 2019 passed by the respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-I, Commercial Tax, Saharanpur, under Section 107(4) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 and also the order dated March 20, 2018 passed by respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner Incharge (Mobile Squad Unit-II), Saharanpur.
3. By the impugned order dated March 20, 2018, penalty has been imposed with respect to the goods being transported without e-way bill under U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules framed thereunder.
4. Relying on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 U.P.T.C.[Vol.100]-1206, it has been submitted, during the period 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 the requirement of e-way bill under U.P. GST Act read with Rules framed thereunder was unenforceable. Therefore, neither seizure of goods was justified nor can the penalty be sustained. Also, the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated march 3, 2018 came to be dismissed on account of delay beyond the period eligible for condonation of delay.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, so far as the matter is squarely covered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (supra), with which we are in agreement, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated April 26, 2019 and also the order dated March 20, 2018 are hereby quashed.
6. Any amount deposited by the petitioner may be refunded in accordance with law within a period of one month.