Puneet Automobiles Ltd. VS State of Uttar Pradesh

The hearing brought together three prominent legal representatives to address the matter at hand. Sri Shubham Agrawal, representing the petitioner, presented his arguments before the court. His role involved advocating for the petitioner’s interests, providing legal arguments and evidence pertinent to the case.

Sri C.B. Tripathi, appearing as special counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, was tasked with representing the state’s position. His arguments and presentation were focused on the state’s legal stance, countering the claims made by the petitioner and addressing any issues or legal questions raised.

Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, serving as the learned counsel for the Union of India, also participated in the proceedings. His role was to represent the central government’s viewpoint, offering legal interpretations and counterarguments relevant to the case.

Throughout the hearing, the interaction between the counsels likely involved a detailed examination of legal precedents, statutory interpretations, and factual evidence. The discussions aimed to clarify the issues at dispute and assist the court in reaching a fair and just decision based on the legal arguments and evidence presented by all parties involved.

On January 2, 2018, a new loader/tipper, with the temporary registration number JH05AL3889, which was coming from Tata Motors Limited in Jamshedpur, was detained and seized by the authorities under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (U.P. GST) Act. This action was taken in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. GST Act related to the detention and seizure of goods for non-compliance with tax regulations.

Following the detention and seizure of the vehicle, a penalty order was issued on January 7, 2018, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. This section provides for the imposition of a penalty in cases where the detained goods are found to be non-compliant with the GST regulations. The penalty order was likely issued due to discrepancies or non-compliance issues related to the transportation of the loader/tipper, though the specific reasons for the penalty are not detailed in the provided information.

Overall, the situation involved the enforcement of GST regulations concerning the movement of goods, with the loader/tipper being detained for non-compliance and a subsequent penalty imposed to address the regulatory breaches identified during the detention.

In this case, a new loader/tipper with the temporary registration number JH05AL3889, originating from Jamshedpur (Tata Motors Limited), was detained and seized on January 2, 2018, under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (U.P. GST) Act. This action was taken due to an alleged violation related to the transport of goods without a valid E-Way Bill.

Following the detention, a penalty order was issued on January 7, 2018, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. The penalty was imposed for the failure to furnish the E-Way Bill promptly at the time of the vehicle’s detention. This writ petition challenges both the detention and the penalty orders, with the petitioner’s counsel arguing that the seizure of the vehicle was unjustified and solely due to the delay in presenting the E-Way Bill, rather than any substantive GST violation. The core issue in the petition revolves around whether the detention and subsequent penalty were lawful given the circumstances surrounding the E-Way Bill’s delay.

On January 2, 2018, a loader/tipper with a temporary registration number JH05AL3889, which was coming from Jamshedpur (Tata Motors Limited), was detained and seized under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (U.P. GST) Act. This action was based on the alleged failure to provide an E-Way Bill at the time of detention. Following this seizure, a penalty order was issued on January 7, 2018, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act.

The petitioner has challenged these actions through a writ petition, arguing that the seizure was unjustified. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the E-Way Bill requirement was implemented under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) only starting February 1, 2018. At the time of the seizure, this requirement was not in effect. Furthermore, while the State of Uttar Pradesh had enacted provisions for the E-Way Bill prior to this date, these provisions did not apply to the State of Jharkhand, from where the loader/tipper had commenced its journey.

In summary, the petitioner argues that the enforcement of the E-Way Bill requirement by Uttar Pradesh, prior to its implementation under the Central GST, was not applicable to the loader/tipper traveling from Jharkhand. Thus, the detention and subsequent penalty imposed were unlawful according to the regulations that were in place at the time of the incident.

In a case involving a loader/tipper with temporary registration number JH05AL3889, the vehicle was detained and seized under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act on January 2, 2018. Subsequently, a penalty order was issued under Section 129(3) of the same Act on January 7, 2018. These actions were challenged through a writ petition.

The petitioner contended that the detention and seizure of the vehicle occurred because the Electronic Way Bill (E-Way Bill) was not furnished immediately upon detention. The petitioner argued that the E-Way Bill requirement was applicable under the Central GST only from February 1, 2018, and was not in effect on the date of the vehicle’s seizure. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that while U.P. had introduced the E-Way Bill requirement earlier, it did not apply to Jharkhand, from where the loader/tipper originated.

The court considered that the loader/tipper was accompanied by other relevant documents, including the temporary registration number, which indicated no intent to evade tax. Taking into account the circumstances and the fact that there was an alternative remedy available through appeal, the court directed that the vehicle be released immediately without requiring any security from the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to challenge the penalty order through an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, if desired.

On January 2, 2018, a new loader/tipper with a temporary registration number JH05AL3889, originating from Jamshedpur (Tata Motors Limited), was detained and seized under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act. Subsequently, a penalty order was issued on January 7, 2018, under Section 129(3) of the same Act. These orders have been challenged in a writ petition.

The petitioner argues that the seizure occurred due to the failure to produce an E-Way Bill at the time of detention. The petitioner contends that the E-Way Bill requirement was applicable under the Central GST from February 1, 2018, and was not in effect on the date of the seizure. Additionally, they note that while the State of U.P. had an E-Way Bill provision, it was not applicable to Jharkhand, from where the loader/tipper had started its journey.

Given these circumstances and despite the availability of an appeal remedy against the seizure order, the petitioner argues that the loader/tipper was accompanied by other supporting documents, including a temporary registration number, which indicated no intention to evade tax. Therefore, the court directed the release of the loader/tipper without requiring any security from the petitioner. The order of penalty remains subject to challenge through an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act, if necessary.

Sri C.B. Tripathi has been directed to file a response to the writ petition within three weeks. The petitioner has been granted two weeks following that to file a rejoinder affidavit.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: