Shaurya Enterprises VS State of Uttar Pradesh

In the case at hand, the Court has considered arguments presented by Shri Raghwendra Prasad Mishra and Shri Vijay Babu, who are respectively representing the petitioner and the State-respondents. The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging two specific actions taken by the authorities.

The first action under scrutiny is a seizure order dated March 25, 2018, issued under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. This provision deals with the seizure of goods when there is a reason to believe that they are liable for confiscation due to violations related to the UPGST Act. The petitioner disputes the legality and appropriateness of this seizure order.

The second action contested by the petitioner is a show cause notice also dated March 25, 2018, issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. This notice is related to the proposed imposition of a penalty, giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond before any penalty is finalized. The petitioner challenges both the issuance of the show cause notice and the grounds on which the penalty is being proposed.

In summary, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality of both the seizure of goods and the proposed penalty, arguing that these actions were not justified or were improperly executed under the relevant provisions of the UPGST Act.

The case at hand involves a writ petition challenging a seizure order and a show cause notice issued under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The petition was filed by the petitioner, represented by Shri Raghwendra Prasad Mishra and Shri Vijay Babu. The dispute centers on a seizure order dated March 25, 2018, issued under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, and a subsequent show cause notice issued on the same date under Section 129(3) of the Act, which proposed a penalty.

The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm, engages in the business of purchasing and selling iron and steel items. On March 23, 2018, the petitioner purchased goods from M/s. Hi Tec Power & Steel Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. These goods were loaded onto a truck for delivery to the petitioner’s place of business in Basti, Uttar Pradesh. The seller from Raipur issued a tax invoice and a test certificate, both dated March 23, 2018, and these documents were given to the transporter, M/s. Shah Transport Corporation, Raipur, who prepared the goods receipt (GR) dated March 23, 2018.

While the truck was en route from Raipur to Basti, it was intercepted and checked at Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, by respondent No. 2. The truck driver presented all the required documents that were handed over to him. However, respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with these documents, leading to the seizure of the goods and the issuance of a show cause notice proposing a penalty.

The petitioner contends that the seizure and the notice are unjustified and that all necessary documents were in order, as evidenced by the tax invoice, test certificate, and goods receipt. The case revolves around whether the documents provided were sufficient and whether the seizure and proposed penalty were legally justified under the UPGST Act.

The writ petition in question challenges a seizure order and a show cause notice related to the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm involved in the trade of iron and steel, disputes the seizure order dated March 25, 2018, and the associated show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act.

The case involves the transportation of goods purchased from M/s. Hi Tec Power & Steel Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. These goods were shipped on March 23, 2018, in a truck from Raipur to Basti, U.P., with the relevant tax invoice and test certificate provided by the seller. The transport company, M/s Shah Transport Corporation, Raipur, issued a goods receipt (GR) on the same date.

While en route, the truck was intercepted at Sonbhadra, U.P., by a respondent official (referred to as respondent No. 2). Although the truck driver presented all the relevant documents, respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with them. An interception memo was issued on March 24, 2018, indicating that the goods and documents would be verified on March 25, 2018, at 11:00 AM.

On March 25, 2018, the respondent prepared a report detailing the transaction but remained unsatisfied with the documentation, leading to a seizure order on the same date. The value of the seized goods was estimated at Rs. 7,92,002 (excluding IGST). The seizure was justified by the claim that the E-way bill, which was mandatory as of April 1, 2018, was missing.

The petitioner argues that, due to practical difficulties, the E-way bill requirement was waived until March 31, 2018, and thus, was not mandatory for the transaction in question. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the E-way bill was downloaded from the official portal on March 24, 2018, at 7:30 PM, just half an hour after the vehicle’s interception, demonstrating their compliance with the E-way bill requirement and negating any intent to evade regulations.

The writ petition concerns the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017, and the subsequent show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the same Act. The petitioner, represented by learned counsel Shri Raghwendra Prasad Mishra and Shri Vijay Babu, challenges these actions taken by the State-respondents.

The petitioner operates a registered proprietorship firm involved in the purchase and sale of iron and steel items. On March 23, 2018, the petitioner purchased goods from M/s. Hi Tec Power & Steel Limited, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. These goods were loaded onto a truck for delivery to the petitioner’s business location in Basti, Uttar Pradesh. The seller prepared a tax invoice and a test certificate, both dated March 23, 2018. These documents were handed over to the transporter, M/s Shah Transport Corporation, Raipur, who issued a goods receipt (GR) also dated March 23, 2018.

During transit, the truck was intercepted by respondent No. 2 at Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh. The truck driver provided all the documents, but respondent No. 2 was not satisfied and issued an interception memo on March 24, 2018, specifying the time as 6:10 PM. This memo required verification of goods and documents to be conducted on March 25, 2018, at 11:00 AM.

On March 25, 2018, respondent No. 2 prepared a report detailing the transaction. Due to dissatisfaction with the documents, a seizure order was issued the same day, estimating the value of the seized goods at Rs. 7,92,002, excluding IGST. The seizure order cited the absence of an E-way bill as the reason for the seizure.

The petitioner argues that the requirement for an E-way bill was waived until March 31, 2018, and only became mandatory from April 1, 2018. Consequently, the petitioner had downloaded the E-way bill from the official portal at 7:30 PM on March 24, 2018, shortly after the vehicle’s interception. The petitioner asserts that this E-way bill was presented immediately after the interception, demonstrating compliance with requirements and negating any ill intention or advantage.

The petitioner further contends that any failure to present the E-way bill could be attributed to human error, given that all other requirements, including the charging of IGST at the prescribed rate of 18%, were met as evidenced by the tax invoice and goods receipt. The petitioner argues that the seizure and proposed penalty are unjustified under these circumstances.

In the case at hand, the petitioner has challenged a seizure order and a show cause notice issued under the UPGST Act, 2017. The seizure order was dated March 25, 2018, and the show cause notice was issued on the same day under Section 129(3) of the Act, proposing a penalty.

The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm dealing in iron and steel, purchased goods from M/s. Hi Tec Power & Steel Limited in Raipur. These goods were loaded onto a truck on March 23, 2018, for delivery to the petitioner’s business in Basti, U.P. The seller prepared a tax invoice and test certificate on the same date, and these documents were handed over to the transporter, M/s Shah Transport Corporation, which issued a goods receipt (GR) dated March 23, 2018.

While en route from Raipur to Basti, the truck was intercepted by a respondent officer in Sonbhadra, U.P. on March 24, 2018. Despite the truck driver presenting all documents, the officer was dissatisfied and issued an interception memo noting that verification of goods and documents was scheduled for March 25, 2018, at 11:00 AM.

On March 25, 2018, the officer prepared a report detailing the transaction and issued a seizure order for the goods and vehicle, valuing the goods at Rs. 7,92,002/- (excluding IGST). The grounds for seizure were the non-availability or non-submission of an E-way bill. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the requirement for an E-way bill was waived until March 31, 2018, and that it became mandatory only from April 1, 2018. The E-way bill was downloaded and presented to the authorities shortly after the vehicle’s interception.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that all other requirements were met, including the correct charging of IGST at 18%, and that the E-way bill was produced promptly after the interception. They argued that any non-compliance was due to a human error, not intentional, and that the seizure order and show cause notice should be reconsidered.

On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the State maintained that the absence of the E-way bill at the time of interception justified the seizure and the show cause notice, suggesting that the subsequent submission of the E-way bill was merely an afterthought.

The court observed that the transaction involved a registered dealer and that the tax invoice and goods receipt indicated the correct IGST rate. The E-way bill, though generated after the interception, was produced with all requisite details. The court noted that the E-way bill requirement was not mandatory until April 1, 2018, and questioned why the authorities did not take these factors into account. The court found merit in the petitioner’s argument that the seizure and penalty actions might have been unjustified given the circumstances.

The case involves a writ petition challenging a seizure order and a show cause notice issued under the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm engaged in the trade of iron and steel, purchased goods from M/s. Hi Tec Power & Steel Limited in Raipur. These goods were transported to Basti, U.P. in a truck provided by M/s Shah Transport Corporation.

On March 23, 2018, the goods were loaded onto the truck, and the necessary tax invoice and test certificate were prepared. The truck, while en route, was intercepted at Sonbhadra, U.P. by respondent No. 2. Despite presenting all documents, the truck driver was issued an interception memo on March 24, 2018, indicating that the goods and documents required further verification on March 25, 2018.

The respondent No. 2 issued a seizure order on March 25, 2018, citing the absence of an E-way bill as the reason for the seizure. The value of the seized goods was estimated at Rs. 7,92,002, excluding IGST. The petitioner’s counsel argued that an E-way bill was not mandatory until April 1, 2018, and it was obtained and presented promptly after the interception. The counsel claimed that the petitioner complied with all other requirements, including charging IGST at the prescribed rate.

The petitioner also contested the show cause notice proposing a penalty of Rs. 1,42,560, equivalent to the assessed tax liability. The Standing Counsel for the State argued that the absence of the E-way bill at the time of interception justified the seizure and penalty, viewing the subsequent submission of the E-way bill as an afterthought.

The court observed that the goods were purchased and sold by registered dealers, and all required taxes were correctly charged. The E-way bill, though not mandatory until April 1, 2018, was provided within half an hour of the interception. The court found the seizure and penalty to be unjustified as the goods were bona fide and properly documented. Consequently, the court set aside the seizure order and show cause notice, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: