Hon’ble Ashok Kumar, J.—We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the seizure order dated 16.4.2018 and the consequential penalty notice dated 16.4.2018 passed/issued under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered company having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner company is also registered under the GST Act, 2017 and is carrying on business of transportation of goods from one place to another. The Branch of petitioner’s company is also declared in the State of U.P. which situates at Plot No. 68, Ecotech-12, Greater Noida, U.P. The said Branch has been leased out to the petitioner by one M/s Paras Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods which are brought from the Delhi for transportation and re-loading in different vehicles to be booked for transportation of goods outside Delhi. One M/s Paharpur 3P, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, the consignor has dispatched Flexible Laminates, which are covered by invoices dated 15.4.2018, for the supply to the consignee M/s Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd., Medak, Telangana, who is also a registered dealer. Apart from the aforesaid item, the said consignor M/s Paharpur 3P has also dispatched Flexible Laminates which too are covered against the tax invoice dated 15.4.2018 to be supplied to the consignee M/s Saife Vetmed Pvt. Ltd. Dehradun, Uttrakhand which is also a registered firm. For the dispatch of the aforesaid two consignments namely for Telangana and for Deharadun, the consignor of Ghaziabad has booked the goods to be delivered both at Telangana as well as Deharadun against the Goods Receipt (GR) which has been prepared on 15.4.2018. The aforesaid consignment was loaded in Truck No. U.P.-14FT-0643 from the premises of the consignor in small vehicle and the same are brought for transshipment Branch which is situate at Grater Noida, U.P. and the goods were reloaded in two different trucks for transportation for Telangana and Deharadun. The distance between the business place of consignor and the Grater Noida Branch of Transporter is approximately 25-30 KM.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the notification No. 12 of 2018 dated 7.3.2018. By this notification, the Central Government has amended CGST Rules, 2017 by CGST (second amendment) Rules, 2018, by which new Rule 138 was substituted.

5. By another notification No. 15 of 2018 issued on 23.3.2018, the Central Government with effect from 1.4.2018 has enforced the notification No. 12 of 2018 dated 7.3.2018 by which amended e-way bill Rules was enforced.

6. In exercise of powers under Section 164 of UPGST Act, U.P. Goods and Service (Fourteenth Amendment), Rules 2018 was framed vide notification No. 487 dated 26.3.2019. Clause three of the Fourteen Amendment Rules of Rule 138 was amended paving way for national e-way bill.

7. The Amended Rule 138 of GST Rules provides that before dispatching of goods for outward supply from the premises of the consignor, it was incumbent to download national e-way bill, which according to the counsel, the petitioner has downloaded two national e-way bills, one for Telangana and another for Deharadun. He has further submitted that the consignor has duly filled the part of the aforesaid national e-way bill which contains the details of consignor as well as consignee and further the details and description of goods to be supplied. ‘Part B’ which pertains to details of truck/vehicle number was left blank to be filled by the transporter (in the present case the petitioner) when the goods will be reloaded in respective trucks at transshipment branch at Grater Noida for further journey upto Telangana and Deharadun respectively.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 15.4.2018 at late evening, that