SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
M/s. Pioneer Pesticides P. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 And 2 Others - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. - 907 OF 2022.
Decided On : 03-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Suyash Agarwal, Counsel.
For the Respondents: C.S.C.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 129(1) and 129(3) - E-way bill - The goods were intercepted and seized on 13.03.2018 while the petitioner argues e-way bill was generated prior to interception; GST Council postponed e-way bill requirement till 31.03.2018 due to hardships faced by assessees - Court finds that the coordinate Bench's ruling supports the petitioner's claims, leading to the reversal of lower orders. (Paras 3, 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act, contending that the e-way bill was valid at the time of interception on 13.03.2018, prior to the requirement being postponed by the GST Council. The goods were seized under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act.

Findings of Court:
The court held that given the recommendation by the GST Council, there was no requirement for an e-way bill until 31.03.2018, and therefore, the interception was invalid - the orders from the lower authorities were set aside.

Issues: The main issues were whether the e-way bill was required at the time of interception and the applicability of the previous court ruling on the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the GST Council's recommendation outweighs previous requirements for e-way bills before the specified date, effectively granting the petitioner relief based on this principle.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. interception and penalty procedures under gst (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. cited precedent supports petitioner's argument (Para 5 , 6)
3. e-way bill requirements postponed until march 31, 2018 (Para 7 , 8)
4. impugned order set aside; petition allowed (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Muzaffarnagar in Appeal No. 0052 of 2020 and the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mathura.

3. Petitioner before this Court is a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 2017'). The case of the petitioner is that before the goods were being transported e-way bill was generated on 13.03.2018 which was valid upto 15.03.2018; the goods were transported from Mohali to Ghaziabad and same were intercepted at Shamli on 13.03.2018 and seizure order was passed on the same day i.e. 13.03.2018 under Section 129 (1) of U.P. GST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act.

4. Thereafter, a notice was issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act of 2017 for determining the tax and penalty. The said notice was replied by the assessee. A penalty order was passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act of 2017 on 01.07.2020. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred which has been rejected by the order dated 20.03.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 33211 of 2018 ( M/S H.B.L. Power Systems Ltd. Through Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary , Department of Tax and Registration and Others) on 27.07.2022. He contends that the case in hand is squarely covered by the said decision.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State could not dispute the said fact.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the requirement of e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was postponed by GST Council noticing the hardship faced by the assessees. The coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s H.B.L.Power Systems Ltd. (supra) relying upon the recommendation of GST Council had held that there was no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018.

8. In the present case, as the goods were intercepted by the mobile squad on 13.03.2018, the recommendation of the GST Council is applicable and there is no requirement for e-way bill till 31.03.2018. Moreover, the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench is applicable and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as given by the co-ordinate Bench in M/s H.B.L.Power Systems Ltd. (supra).

9. In view of the said fact the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Muzaffarnagar in Appeal No. 0052 of 2020 and the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mathura, are hereby set-aside.

10. Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top