Axpress Logistics India (P.) Ltd. VS Union of India

The case involves a detailed legal proceeding where Shri Aloke Kumar represents the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari is the counsel for respondent number one, and Shri C.B. Tripathi serves as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents two to four. The discussions and legal arguments are centered around the issues at hand, with each counsel presenting their respective positions and interpretations of the law. The petitioner’s side, led by Shri Aloke Kumar, is putting forth their claims and arguments, while the responses from Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari and Shri C.B. Tripathi focus on defending the positions of their respective clients. The proceedings are characterized by a thorough examination of the legal and factual issues involved, with each party advocating for their respective positions in the case.

In this case, the court heard arguments from various legal representatives, including Shri Aloke Kumar, representing the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari, for respondent no. 1, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the Standing Counsel for respondents no. 2 to 4. The matter concerns a shipment of goods that were being transported from Panvel, Raigarh in Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd., a registered dealer located at Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow. The goods were dispatched on March 24, 2018, with the intent to deliver them to Lucknow. However, during transit, the goods were intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 in Kanpur. The reason for this detention was that the goods were not accompanied by an E-way bill-01, which is a requirement for such transportation.

In the case at hand, the court has heard arguments from Shri Aloke Kumar, representing the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari for respondent no. 1, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The matter involves goods being transported from Panvel, Raigarh in Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd.’s Local Distribution Centre located at Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda in Lucknow, a registered dealer. The shipment, which departed on March 24, 2018, was intended for delivery to Lucknow. However, the goods were intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 in Kanpur during transit.

The reason given for the detention by respondent no. 4 was the absence of the required E-way bill. The petitioner’s counsel presented evidence showing that the E-way bill was issued on March 24, 2018, and the corresponding E-way bill-01 was downloaded on March 28, 2018, which was prior to the detention of the vehicle. Despite this, the goods were ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act.

The case involves a legal dispute concerning the detention and seizure of goods during their transport. The goods were being transported from Panvel, Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd., a registered dealer located at Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow. The shipment began on March 24, 2018, but was intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 in Kanpur. The reason provided for the detention was the absence of the E-way bill-01 accompanying the goods.

Shri Aloke Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued that the E-way bill was issued on March 24, 2018, and that an E-way bill-01 was downloaded on March 28, 2018, which was prior to the detention. The goods were eventually seized under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act. Upon reviewing the case documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills, it was found that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act had indeed been downloaded by the petitioner before the detention and seizure occurred, and it contained all the necessary information required for compliance.

The case involves the transportation of goods from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre in Lucknow, which is a registered dealer. On March 24, 2018, the goods were dispatched for delivery to Lucknow but were intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 in Kanpur. The reason for this detention was that the goods were allegedly not accompanied by an E-way bill-01.

Shri Aloke Kumar, the petitioner’s counsel, and Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari, representing respondent no. 1, along with Shri C.B. Tripathi, the Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, were present during the hearing. The petitioner’s counsel provided evidence showing that the E-way bill, which is essential under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, had been issued on March 24, 2018, and the E-way bill-01 had been downloaded on March 28, 2018, before the detention of the vehicle.

The goods were subsequently seized under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act. Upon reviewing the documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills attached to the writ petition, it was confirmed that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act had been downloaded by the petitioner prior to the detention and seizure. The E-way bill contained all the required information.

Given these findings, the court concluded that there was no irregularity in the transaction, and thus, no merit in the seizure of the goods and the vehicle.

In the case at hand, Shri Aloke Kumar represented the petitioner, while Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari represented respondent no. 1, and Shri C.B. Tripathi served as the Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4. The matter involves goods being transported from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd. Local Distribution Centre, Khasra No. 1482 NH 56 B, Jaiti Kheda, Lucknow, a registered dealer. The shipment was on its way to Lucknow on March 24, 2018, when it was intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 at Kanpur. The reason for the detention was that the goods were not accompanied by the E-way bill-01.

The petitioner’s counsel presented evidence showing that the E-way bill was issued on March 24, 2018, and that E-way bill-01 was downloaded on March 28, 2018, before the detention occurred. The goods were eventually seized under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act. Upon review of the relevant documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills attached to the writ petition, it was confirmed that the E-way bill under the UPGST Act was indeed downloaded before the detention and seizure took place, and it included all necessary information.

Given these findings, the court determined that there was no irregularity in the transaction. Consequently, the court set aside both the seizure order and the penalty notice dated March 28, 2018, issued under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act, along with any subsequent proceedings.

The case involved several parties including Shri Aloke Kumar, representing the petitioner, Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari for respondent no. 1, and Shri C.B. Tripathi, the Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4. The dispute centered around the transportation of goods from Panvel Raigarh, Maharashtra to M/s. Bosch Ltd.’s Local Distribution Centre in Lucknow, a registered dealer. The goods were dispatched on March 24, 2018, but were intercepted and detained by respondent no. 4 in Kanpur. The reason for the detention was the absence of an E-way bill.

The petitioner’s counsel presented the E-way bill issued on March 24, 2018, which was downloaded before the detention occurred, thus showing compliance with the CGST regulations. The goods were ultimately seized under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act. Upon reviewing the documents, including the invoice, goods receipt, and E-way bills, it was determined that the E-way bill had been properly downloaded and contained all required information before the detention of the goods and vehicle.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that there was no irregularity in the transaction. Consequently, the seizure order and penalty notice issued on March 28, 2018, under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) of the UPGST Act, along with any subsequent proceedings, were overturned. The court directed that the seized goods and vehicle be released to the petitioner immediately.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: