Torque Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh

Certainly! To provide a comprehensive summary, I’ll need a bit more context regarding the case or matter discussed. Could you provide details or the main points of the hearing involving Sri Nishant Mishra and Sri C.B. Tripathi? This will help me tailor the summary accurately.

In a recent legal matter, the petitioner has challenged an order of seizure and a subsequent notice issued by the third respondent on March 30, 2018. The writ petition was filed by Sri Nishant Mishra, representing the petitioner, against the action taken by Sri C.B. Tripathi, the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner, a company with its registered office in Chandigarh and a branch office in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, is involved in manufacturing medicines and mineral water. Its manufacturing units are located in Derabassi, Punjab, and Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. The dispute centers around the seizure of goods that were being transported from Himachal Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh.

According to the petitioner, the goods were transferred under proper stock transfer invoices, with Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) at 18% duly paid. An E-Way Bill, as required by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, was generated and included the correct vehicle number (HP12C-2297) and other relevant details. The petitioner argues that the seizure and notice issued under Section 191(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017, were unjustified and seeks redress through the writ petition.

The petitioner, represented by counsel Sri Nishant Mishra, has challenged a seizure order issued by respondent no. 3 on March 30, 2018, as well as a notice dated March 30, 2018, under Section 191(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner’s company, which operates its registered office in Chandigarh and a branch office in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, is involved in manufacturing medicines and mineral water. Its manufacturing units are located in Derabassi, Punjab, and Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

The case revolves around the transportation of goods from Himachal Pradesh to Gorakhpur. The petitioner argues that the goods were transported with the proper documentation, including paying the required Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) of 18%. An E-Way Bill was generated in compliance with the CGST Rules, detailing the vehicle number (HP12C-2297) and other relevant details.

Due to logistical constraints imposed by the Transport Union in Himachal Pradesh, which restricts the transportation of goods using vehicles provided by the union, the petitioner’s goods were first transported from Himachal Pradesh to Chandigarh using the vehicle mentioned above. After arriving in Chandigarh, the goods were transferred to a different vehicle, Truck No. HR 46 B-9022, for the onward journey to Gorakhpur.

Additionally, another set of goods was transported under stock transfer invoices dated March 21, 2018, and March 24, 2018. These goods were moved from the Derabassi unit in Punjab to the Chandigarh transporter’s office, with all requisite IGST payments made and E-Way Bills generated. The goods were then loaded onto Truck No. HR 46 B-9022 in Chandigarh for transportation to Gorakhpur.

The petitioner claims that it complied with all necessary E-Way Bill requirements under both CGST and UPGST Rules for all three transactions. The primary contention is that the seizure and notice are unjustified as the movement of goods and documentation were conducted in accordance with the legal provisions.

In this case, the petitioner, a company based in Chandigarh with a branch in Gorakhpur, has filed a writ petition challenging a seizure order and a notice issued under Section 191(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner, involved in manufacturing medicines and mineral water with units in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, had transferred goods from Himachal Pradesh to Gorakhpur through Chandigarh. The goods were transported using different vehicles at different stages due to the transport union’s regulations and requirements.

The petitioner contends that they complied with the necessary legal requirements by generating and using E-Way Bills for the transportation of goods. However, because the portal did not accept multiple vehicle numbers for a single transaction, the petitioner manually entered the subsequent vehicle number. The issue arose when the vehicle was intercepted by the authorities in Mainpuri. The authorities claimed discrepancies in the E-Way Bills, specifically that vehicle numbers were handwritten and that one E-Way Bill did not correspond to the goods in question.

The authorities issued a seizure order and a show cause notice under Section 129(3) of the Act, directing the petitioner to explain the differences and discrepancies by 04.04.2018. The petitioner argues that there was no wrongdoing on their part, and the discrepancies were due to portal limitations rather than any error or intent to violate the regulations. Despite providing relevant documents and explanations, the seizure order was issued based on the claim of handwritten vehicle numbers and the alleged misuse of an E-Way Bill.

The writ petition seeks to challenge the seizure order and the notice, arguing that the seizure was unjustified and not properly considered in light of the provided explanations and documentation.

In the case involving the petitioner and the respondents, the key issue is the seizure of goods and a vehicle based on discrepancies in E-Way Bills. Here’s a detailed summary:

The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging a seizure order dated March 30, 2018, and a notice issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a company with a registered office in Chandigarh and a branch office in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, engages in manufacturing medicines and mineral water. Its manufacturing units are located in Derabassi, Punjab, and Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner transported goods from Himachal Pradesh to Chandigarh and subsequently from Chandigarh to Gorakhpur using different vehicles due to local transport union restrictions. The goods were transferred under stock transfer invoices with IGST paid at 18%. E-Way Bills, required under CGST Rules, were generated with correct vehicle numbers and details for each leg of the journey.

However, during transit, the petitioner encountered issues due to the transport union’s restrictions in Himachal Pradesh, necessitating a change of vehicle in Chandigarh for the onward journey. The petitioner generated E-Way Bills for all transactions but faced a technical issue with the portal which only allowed one vehicle number per transaction, leading to handwritten vehicle numbers on some E-Way Bills.

On crossing Mainpuri, the vehicle was intercepted by respondent no. 3, who alleged discrepancies in the E-Way Bills, including handwritten vehicle numbers and an E-Way Bill not used for the goods, claiming they were unrelated to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner providing relevant documents and explanations, respondent no. 3 seized the goods and vehicle, citing the handwritten vehicle numbers as a primary reason.

A show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner responded by explaining the handwritten numbers and clarifying that the disputed goods did not belong to them. Despite this, respondent no. 3 required a bank guarantee for the release of the seized goods and vehicle.

The writ petition contests the legality of the seizure order. The court observed that in states like Himachal Pradesh, transport unions exert control over vehicle operations, which affected the transportation logistics in this case. The resistance by transport unions meant that vehicles from Himachal Pradesh were not allowed to travel beyond Chandigarh without unloading and reloading in another vehicle. The court found merit in the petitioner’s arguments and considered the petition’s submissions as substantial in challenging the seizure order.

The writ petition at hand challenges the seizure order issued by respondent no. 3 on March 30, 2018, and a notice dated the same day under Section 191(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a company with its registered office in Chandigarh and a branch in Gorakhpur, engages in the manufacture of medicines and mineral water with units in Derabassi, Punjab, and Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

The petitioner transferred stock against stock transfer invoices after paying 18% IGST, and transported the goods from Himachal Pradesh to Chandigarh, where they were loaded onto another vehicle for transportation to Gorakhpur. Similarly, goods from Derabassi were transported to Gorakhpur in a two-vehicle process: first from Derabassi to Chandigarh and then from Chandigarh to Gorakhpur. The petitioner generated E-Way Bills for these transactions but encountered issues with the portal that did not accept multiple vehicle numbers, resulting in the subsequent vehicle number being hand-written on the bills.

The issue arose when the goods, transported in vehicle number HR 46 B-9022, were intercepted by respondent no. 3 in Mainpuri. The seizure was based on the claim that vehicle numbers on E-Way Bill-01 were hand-written and that this E-Way Bill was not used for other goods, which were allegedly unrelated to the petitioner. Despite the petitioner providing all relevant documents and explanations, the respondent issued a seizure order for the goods and vehicle.

A show cause notice was issued, questioning the discrepancy in IGST and the handwritten vehicle numbers. The petitioner clarified that the handwritten vehicle numbers were due to portal limitations and that the other goods in question did not belong to them. The respondent, however, demanded a bank guarantee for the release of the goods.

The court, after reviewing the record and submissions, found merit in the petitioner’s arguments. It noted that transport unions in certain states, like Himachal Pradesh, restrict outside vehicles and that the petitioner had to unload and reload goods due to such restrictions. The court observed that the handwritten vehicle number on the E-Way Bill was a result of the portal’s limitations and not an irregularity on the petitioner’s part.

The court directed respondent no. 3 to release the seized goods and vehicle immediately, acknowledging that any tax discrepancies could be addressed by the GST Authority following proper legal procedures.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: