Absence of the E-way bill could not be a reason to seize the goods for the period prior to 31.3.2018 when e-way bill was not applicable.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods have been seized solely on account of absence of E-way bill. The counsel relying on earlier decision of this Court in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others) dated 18.9.2018, submitted that absence of the said Eway bill could not be a reason to seize the goods on 23.2.2018.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the present writ petition on the same terms and quashed the impugned order.
Absence of the E-way bill could not be a reason to seize the goods for the period prior to 31.3.2018 when e-way bill was not applicable.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit —–The petitioner challenged order dated 28.2.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods have been seized solely on account of absence of E-way bill. The counsel relying on earlier decision of this Court in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others) dated 18.9.2018, submitted that absence of the said Eway bill could not be a reason to seize the goods on 23.2.2018.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the present writ petition on the same terms and quashed the impugned order.