Havells India Ltd. Vs State of U.P.
Date: April 5, 2023
Subject Matter
If an E-Waybill is downloaded before the detention, and all necessary formalities are fulfilled, then the detention is unjustified
Summary
In the case of Havells India Ltd. vs. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court quashed two orders issued against Havells India Ltd. under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. The goods of Havells were detained on December 19, 2017, on the grounds that they were not accompanied by an E-Waybill. Havells contested this, providing evidence that the E-Waybill had been downloaded on December 18, 2017, prior to the detention. The court referred to a precedent (Mahalaxmi Traders vs. State of U.P.), which held that if an E-Waybill is downloaded before the detention, and all necessary formalities are fulfilled, then the detention is unjustified. Consequently, the court allowed Havells' writ petition, set aside the detention orders, and reinstated the rights of the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2017 whereby the order was passed against the petitioner under section 129 (3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act as well as the order dated 27.02.2019 whereby the appeal was dismissed.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order was passed detaining the goods on 19.12.2017 mainly on the ground that the same was not accompanied by the E-Waybill. He argues that the E-Waybill was downloaded prior to the detention order on 18.12.2017 which is on record. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 17.04.2018 passed in Writ Tax No.652 of 2018 (Mahalaxmi Traders vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the similar issue was decided by this Court holding that if the E-Waybill has been downloaded prior to the passing of the detention and seizure of the goods disclosing all the necessary formalities, no irregularity was found by this Court in the transaction and on the said ground, the seizure as well as the penalty order and the consequential proceedings were set aside.
In view of the above, I do not see any reason to defer the view taken by this Court in the case of the Mahalaxmi Traders (supra). Thus, following the said judgment and on the ground that the E-Waybill was downloaded prior to the detention order, the writ petiton is allowed. The impugned orders dated 23.12.2017 and 27.02.2019 are set aside.