Singh Tyres VS State Of Uttar Pradesh

The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm engaged in the business of trading various kinds of tyres and tubes, is currently involved in a legal dispute with the State respondents concerning the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The firm operates under a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) issued by the assessing authority, affirming its status as a registered dealer under the GST Act. In this case, the petitioner purchased tyres and tubes from Apollo Tyres Ltd., a well-known manufacturer located in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. After receiving a purchase order from a registered entity for the supply of these tyres and tubes, the petitioner proceeded to arrange the transportation of the consignment. The goods were to be transported from Allahabad to Mirzapur to fulfill the order. The crux of the legal issue seems to center around the petitioner’s adherence to GST regulations during this process. Specifically, the dispute likely involves aspects of tax compliance related to the documentation and procedural requirements for the transportation of goods under the GST framework. This situation underscores potential challenges in navigating GST regulations, particularly in ensuring that all tax-related obligations are met during the movement of goods between locations.

In the legal dispute currently at hand, the petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm specializing in the trade of various types of tyres and tubes, asserts that it meticulously adhered to all required documentation and procedural norms during the transportation of its goods. The firm had arranged for the shipment of tyres and tubes purchased from Apollo Tyres Ltd., located in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, to a registered buyer in Mirzapur. The petitioner claims that during the entire transit of these goods from Allahabad to Mirzapur, all necessary documents, including invoices and transport challans, were duly prepared and were accompanying the consignment as mandated by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017.

However, on March 27, 2018, the consignment was intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) of the Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. The interception occurred at approximately 7:30 a.m., and the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice or detention memo under Section 129(1) of the GST Act. This legal notice signifies that the authorities raised concerns about the compliance of the transported goods with GST regulations.

The petitioner contends that despite their adherence to all relevant regulations and the possession of proper documentation, the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner indicates that there may have been issues or discrepancies noted by the authorities. The dispute centers on whether the petitioner’s compliance with GST requirements was sufficient or if there were deficiencies that led to the detention of the goods. This situation underscores the complexities of ensuring regulatory compliance during the transportation of goods and highlights the challenges businesses may face in meeting all the procedural demands of the GST framework.

In the ongoing legal matter, the petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm involved in the trading of tyres and tubes, was instructed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh (referred to as respondent no. 2) on March 28, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. in his office. The petitioner asserts that they were previously unaware of the requirement to obtain an E-Way Bill for the transportation of goods within the state of Uttar Pradesh.

According to the petitioner’s account, on the day of the interception, March 27, 2018, they took immediate action to comply with this requirement. The petitioner claims that they successfully downloaded the E-Way Bill from the official department portal at 9:39 p.m. on March 27, 2018. This E-Way Bill, which is essential for the legal transportation of goods, was subsequently produced by the petitioner during their appearance before respondent no. 2.

The dispute thus revolves around the petitioner’s understanding and adherence to the GST regulations regarding the E-Way Bill requirement. The petitioner argues that, despite their initial lack of awareness, they made a timely effort to rectify the situation by obtaining and presenting the E-Way Bill as soon as they became aware of the requirement. This suggests that the issue may involve assessing whether the petitioner’s late compliance with the E-Way Bill requirement sufficiently addressed the concerns raised during the interception of the goods.

In the current legal matter, the petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm trading in tyres and tubes, contends that the seizure order issued by respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) of the Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, is both illegal and unjust. The petitioner argues that respondent no. 2 issued the impugned seizure order on March 27, 2018, despite having instructed the petitioner to appear before him on March 28, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., to present their reply and relevant documents.

The petitioner asserts that this timing discrepancy renders the seizure order invalid. According to the petitioner, the order was issued a day before the scheduled appearance, which undermines the fairness of the process. The legal argument presented is that the seizure order disregards the fact that the petitioner was directed to address the matter on March 28, 2018, thereby making the order issued on March 27, 2018, premature and procedurally flawed.

Upon reviewing the case, including the arguments of both parties and the evidence presented, it is observed that the seizure order cannot be upheld in its current form. The order was issued on a date prior to the one given by respondent no. 2 for the petitioner’s appearance and submission of documents, thus compromising the procedural integrity of the enforcement action. Furthermore, it has been noted that while the notice or detention memo issued by respondent no. 2 explicitly mentioned a specific time, the subsequent seizure order failed to indicate any time, which raises concerns about the intention behind the order.

This discrepancy in the time mentioned, coupled with the procedural error of issuing the seizure order before the allowed date, suggests a potential lapse or misjudgment on the part of respondent no. 2. The legal opinion concludes that these factors collectively demonstrate that the seizure order was issued with an improper application of procedure and intent, rendering it unlawful and subject to being quashed.

Upon thorough examination of the records in the case, it has been established that the petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm engaged in the trading of tyres and tubes, had complied with the necessary legal requirements during the transportation of their goods within the state of Uttar Pradesh. The records confirm that the goods were being transported from one location to another within the state and that they were accompanied by all requisite documentation. This included the mandatory E-Way Bill, which the petitioner had duly obtained and presented.

Specifically, the petitioner demonstrated that they had acquired the E-Way Bill and had produced it before respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) of the Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, in accordance with the directions given. This submission occurred before the date set for the petitioner’s formal appearance and response, which was March 28, 2018.

Given these findings, it is clear that the petitioner had adhered to the legal requirements for the transportation of goods and had made timely efforts to comply with the regulations as soon as they were aware of them. The procedural flaws identified in the issuance of the seizure order, coupled with the petitioner’s demonstrated compliance, necessitate a favorable resolution for the petitioner.

In light of these considerations, the court has determined that there are no grounds to uphold the seizure order or the associated notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed, and both the seizure order and the consequential notice are quashed, effectively invalidating the enforcement actions taken against the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: