Downloading of GST E-way bill is Mandatory | Allahabad High Court Judgment

Court No. – 32
Case :- WRIT TAX No. – 563 of 2018
Petitioner :- M/S Shaurya Enterprises
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghwendra Prasad Mishra,Vijay Babu
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon’ble Krishna Murari,J.
Hon’ble Ashok Kumar,J

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

We have heard Shri Raghwendra Prasad Mishra and Shri Vijay
Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

The instant writ petition has been filed by which the petitioner
has challenged the seizure order dated 25.3.2018 passed under
Section 129 (1) of UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act’) and the show cause notice dated 25.3.2018 issued under Section
129 (3) of the Act for proposed penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm and is carrying on the
business of purchase and sale of iron and steel items. Certain goods
have been purchased by the petitioner from one M/s. Hi Tec Power &
Steel Limited, Raipur, Chattisgarh which were loaded at Raipur on
23.3.2018 in a truck for delivery from Raipur to Basti U.P. at the
petitioner’s place of business. The seller of Raipur has prepared the
tax invoice as well as test certificate dated 23.3.2018 and the same
were handed over to the transporter, namely, M/s Shah Transport
Corporation, Raipur who has prepared the goods receipt (GR) dated
23.3.2018.

During movement of the vehicle from Raipur to Basti, the
truck has been intercepted and checked at Sonbhadra, U.P., by
respondent No. 2. Before the respondent No.2 the truck driver has
placed all the records/documents which were handed over to him,
however, the respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the documents

accompanying the goods as such, has issued an interception memo
dated 24.3.2018 mentioning therein the time of issuance at 6:10 PM.
In the said interception memo, the respondent No. 2 has mentioned
for verification of goods and documents while fixing the date for the
same on 25.3.2018 at 11:00 AM.

The respondent No. 2 has prepared a report dated 25.3.2018 in
which the details with regard to transaction has been noted.

Since, the respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the
documents, therefore, a seizure order has been passed on the same
date, namely, on 25.3.2018 wherein the value of the goods has been
estimated at Rs. 7,92,002/- excluding the IGST, which has been
clearly mentioned in the tax invoice as well as in the GR issued by
the transporter. Vide seizure order dated 25.3.2018, the respondent
No. 2 has indicated that the goods and vehicle has been seized on the
ground of non availability or non submission of E-way bill. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of some
practical difficulties the necessity of the E-way bill has been waived
of till 31st March, 2018 and the same has become mandatory with
effect from 1st April, 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that since the respondent No. 2 has directed for
furnishing/presentation of the E-way bill, the same has been
downloaded from the official portal on 24.3.2018 at 7:30 PM i.e. just
after half an hour from detention/interception of the vehicle.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has
complied with the requirement of submission of E-way bill and the
same has been produced immediately after interception of the vehicle,
therefore, there was no ill intention on the part of the petitioner nor
the petitioner stands benefited in any manner whatsoever in not
accompanying the E-way bill.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that it may be a human error which has to be considered by the
respondent No.2 when all other requirement were complied with by
the petitioner and particularly the IGST has been charged at the
prescribed rate of 18% which is self explanatory from the bare
perusal of the tax invoice as well as good receipt which clearly.

indicating the value and tax charged separately mentioning in the tax
invoice.


Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the show
cause notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act by which the
respondent No. 2 has proposed to impose the penalty to the extent of
Rs. 1,42,560/- i.e. equal to the liability of tax which has been assessed
at the rate of 18% on the value of the goods.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has pointed out
before us that E-way bill was admittedly not accompanying with the
goods when the vehicle was intercepted and filing of the E-way bill
subsequently has nothing but an after thought, therefore, the seizure
proceedings and the show cause notice under Section 129 (3) are well
within the domain of the authorities.


We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
found that admittedly the goods were being purchased by a registered
dealer and the same are sold by the registered dealer. While issuing
the tax invoice which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition
clearly indicates the charge of IGST at the rate of 18% on value of the
goods has been paid. We have also noticed that even the net value
which includes the value of the goods as well as tax charged has been
duly mentioned by the transporter while issuing the goods receipt.
There is no other reason except of non submission of the E-way bill
at the time of interception of the vehicle in question. We have also
perused the E-way bill which has been generated by the person
Incharge of the vehicle immediately within half an hour from the time
of detention/interception of the vehicle mentioning therein all the
requisite details and submitting the same before the authority. We
failed to understand as to why the authority has not considered all the
aforesaid relevant facts and has arrived to a conclusion that the
transaction in question was not a bonafide transaction and has seized
the goods and vehicle. Admittedly, till 31st March, 2018 it was not
mandatory to download the E-way bill from the official portal. We
find the substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that only with effect from 1st April, 2018 the requirement
of downloading of the E-way bill is compulsory. However, without

going into the said controversy at this stage, we find that the goods
were bonafidely dispatched and are travelled from Raipur for the
delivery at Basti are illegally and arbitrarily detained by the
respondent No.2. We see no reason in seizing the goods and asking
for the penalty.

In view of the aforesaid facts and the reasons given here-inabove,
the order passed under Section 129 (1) of the Act passed on
25.3.2018 and the show cause notice issued under Section 129 (3) of
the Act are hereby set aside.

The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 5.4.2018

Ravi Prakash
(Ashok Kumar, J.) (Krishna Murari, J.)


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.