Sec. 129(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The goods were sold against the invoice dated 5.4.2018 after charging IGST @ 18%. The goods were handed over to the transporter on 4.5.2018 who has loaded the same in a vehicle. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that though the E-way bill post 1.4.2018 was not clear and the notification issued under CGST/UPGST Act were silent with regard to requirement of E-way bill for interstate transactions. The petitioner dispatched the goods without generating the E-way bill. Vehicle was intercepted on the ground that the goods were not accompanied with E-way bill. When proprietor of firm received the information, he immediately generated e-way bill on 5.5.2018 at 11:55am. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has furnished the e-way bill before the respondent prior to seizure proceedings and seizure order but the respondent passed the seizure order. Allahabad High Court while allowing the appeal of the dealer held that:—We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the E-way bill is produced and other documents clearly indicates that the goods belongs to the registered dealer and the IGST has been charged there remains no justification in detaining and seizing the goods and asking the penalty. In view of the aforesaid facts, we quash the seizure order dated 5.5.2018 as well as the consequential penalty order dated 5.5.2018. We direct the respondent no.3 to immediately release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner.[2018] 51 TUD 159 (ALL)