Surendra Steel Supply Company VS State of Uttar Pradesh

In this case, the petitioner, who is a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 06/AGMPK6002C1ZV, sold a consignment of M.S. Bar (mixed sizes) to the consignee, who is also a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The value of the goods was Rs. 10,73,100/-. The transaction took place under a purchase order, and the goods were being transported from Haryana, where the petitioner’s company is located, to Kanpur.

The transaction was documented in Invoice No. 5, where the applicable taxes were calculated and paid. Specifically, the petitioner paid CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) at a rate of 9%, amounting to Rs. 96,579/-, and SGST (State Goods and Services Tax) also at a rate of 9%, amounting to Rs. 96,579/-. These payments are clearly reflected in the tax invoice, which has been submitted as Annexure-1 in the writ petition.

The summary emphasizes the legitimacy of the transaction and the petitioner’s compliance with the GST payment requirements, as evidenced by the tax invoice.

The petitioner, a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 06/AGMPK6002C1ZV, sold M.S. Bars (mixed sizes) valued at ₹10,73,100/- to the consignee, another registered dealer with GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The goods were being transported from Haryana, where the petitioner’s company is based, to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner issued Invoice No. 5 for the transaction, and the applicable Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) at 9% and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) at 9% were duly paid, amounting to ₹96,579/- each. These tax payments were clearly documented in the tax invoice attached as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

On April 1, 2018, at approximately 9:30 a.m., the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted at Kanpur by the second respondent. A detention memo was issued on the grounds that E-Way Bill No. 01 was not available. Consequently, the authorities decided to conduct a physical verification of the goods. The physical verification and inspection were scheduled for April 2, 2018, at 11:00 a.m.

The case revolves around the legal validity of the interception and the procedural correctness of the actions taken by the authorities, particularly concerning the absence of the E-Way Bill and the subsequent detention of the goods. The petitioner challenges these actions, likely seeking relief from any penalties or actions that may have arisen from this incident.

The petitioner, a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 06/AGMPK6002C1ZV, sold M.S. Bars (mix size) to the consignee, another registered dealer with GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The transaction was valued at ₹10,73,100, with the goods being transported from the petitioner’s location in Haryana to the consignee in Kanpur. The petitioner duly paid the CGST and SGST at 9% each, amounting to ₹96,579 each, as reflected in the tax invoice (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

On April 1, 2018, around 9:30 a.m., the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted in Kanpur by the respondent No. 2. The authorities issued an interception/detention memo, citing the absence of an E-Way Bill No. 01, and scheduled the physical verification of the goods for April 2, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner’s counsel argues that E-Way Bill No. 01 was generated on April 1, 2018, at approximately 9:57 a.m., and was presented to the respondent No. 2.

However, before the scheduled time for physical verification, a seizure order was issued under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“GST Act, 2017”) on April 2, 2018, at around 8:55 a.m. The seizure order wrongly stated that the goods were being transported without the E-Way Bill No. 01, which the petitioner contends was not the case, as the E-Way Bill had already been generated and produced before the authorities. The petitioner challenges the seizure order, arguing that it was passed prematurely and based on incorrect facts, as the goods were not being transported without authorization.

In this case, the petitioner, a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 06/AGMPK6002C1ZV, sold M.S. Bar (mix size) valued at Rs. 10,73,100/- to the consignee, who is also a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The goods were being transported from Haryana, where the petitioner’s company is located, to Kanpur under Invoice No. 5. The petitioner duly paid CGST and SGST, each amounting to Rs. 96,579/-, as reflected in the tax invoice attached to the petition.

On April 1, 2018, at approximately 9:30 a.m., the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted by Respondent No. 2 in Kanpur. An interception/detention memo was issued due to the absence of E-Way Bill No. 01, and physical verification of the goods was scheduled for April 2, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner’s counsel contended that E-Way Bill No. 01 was generated on April 1, 2018, at around 9:57 a.m. and was presented to Respondent No. 2. Despite this, a seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, was issued on April 2, 2018, at 8:55 a.m., before the scheduled time for physical verification and inspection.

The petitioner argued that the seizure order incorrectly stated that the goods were being transported without E-Way Bill No. 01, which was already generated and presented to the authorities. The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that it was unreasonable and illogical to claim that the E-Way Bill, generated at 9:57 a.m. on April 1, 2018, was not produced before the authorities. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the requirement for an E-Way Bill had been suspended by the Central Government, making the seizure unjustifiable.

The petitioner contested the seizure and detention as being unjustified and based on an incorrect recording of facts, arguing that the E-Way Bill was generated and presented as required. Despite this, the seizure order was issued prematurely, violating the provisions of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, and disregarding the suspension of the E-Way Bill requirement by the Central Government. The petitioner sought relief from the seizure and detention, asserting that the actions of the authorities were unjust and based on erroneous reasoning.

In this case, the petitioner, a registered dealer with GSTIN No. 06/AGMPK6002C1ZV, sold M.S. Bars (mix size) valued at ₹10,73,100/- to a registered consignee dealer with GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The goods were being transported from Haryana to Kanpur under a tax invoice, where CGST and SGST at 9% each, amounting to ₹96,579/- each, were duly paid by the petitioner.

On April 1, 2018, at around 9:30 a.m., the vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted in Kanpur by respondent No. 2, who issued a detention memo on the grounds that E-Way Bill No. 01 was not available. Consequently, the authorities scheduled a physical verification of the goods for April 2, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner’s counsel argued that E-Way Bill No. 01 was generated on April 1, 2018, at approximately 9:57 a.m., and was presented to the authorities. Despite this, the authorities issued a seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on April 2, 2018, at 8:55 a.m., prior to the scheduled physical verification. The seizure order claimed that the goods were being transported without an E-Way Bill, which the petitioner disputes.

The petitioner contended that it is illogical to assert that E-Way Bill No. 01, generated and presented before the authority, was not produced. Additionally, the petitioner argued that there was no requirement for an E-Way Bill at the time, as the Central Government had suspended the E-Way Bill requirement.

During the proceedings, the Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents was unable to justify the seizure order given the facts of the case. The court observed that many petitions were being filed challenging the interception and seizure of goods due to the absence of E-Way Bills, despite no requirement for them at the time. As a result, the court directed respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-XI, Kanpur, U.P., to appear before the court on April 13, 2018, to explain the legal authority under which the vehicle was intercepted and the seizure order was issued despite the generation and presentation of E-Way Bill No. 01.

In the meantime, the court ordered that the effect and operation of the seizure order under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017, be stayed until April 13, 2018. The respondents were also directed to release the seized goods and the vehicle immediately.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: