Techno Fabs VS Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal)

The court session commenced with presentations from both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. The case at hand revolves around the seizure of the petitioner’s goods, which were in transit from Kolkata to Budaun, on 11th February 2018. The primary contention for the seizure was the absence of an E-way bill accompanying the goods.

The petitioner’s counsel likely argued against the legality of the seizure, contending that the absence of an E-way bill should not warrant such drastic action, especially if other relevant documentation was present. They might have emphasized procedural irregularities or mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident, suggesting that the seizure was unjustified or improperly enforced.

On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel likely defended the actions taken by the authorities, asserting that the seizure was lawful and justified under the provisions of the relevant statutes, including the requirement for E-way bills. They may have argued that the seizure was necessary to enforce compliance with tax laws and prevent potential tax evasion, thereby safeguarding the interests of the state.

The court would have considered arguments from both sides, examining the relevant provisions of the law, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case. The key points of contention would likely revolve around the interpretation and application of regulations regarding E-way bills, the authority’s discretion in seizing goods, and the proportionality of the action taken.

Ultimately, the court’s decision would depend on its assessment of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. It would aim to ensure a fair and just resolution, balancing the interests of all parties involved while upholding the rule of law.

The counsel for the petitioner has meticulously laid out their argument, emphasizing the intricacies of the legal framework surrounding the E-way bill requirement during the period in question. Their assertion that the petitioner’s transactions were exempt from the requirement of an E-way bill between 1st February 2018 and 31st March 2018 is not merely a matter of interpretation but is firmly grounded in a precedent-setting ruling by the Division Bench of this Court.

In delving deeper into the cited case, Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and two others), decided on 18th September 2018, the petitioner’s counsel highlights the comprehensive analysis undertaken by the Division Bench. They draw attention to paragraph 56 of the judgment, where the Bench categorically clarified that goods were exempt from the requirement of an E-way bill during the aforementioned period. This interpretation, arrived at through meticulous legal scrutiny and considered deliberation, holds significant weight in shaping the legal landscape concerning E-way bill regulations.

Furthermore, the reliance on this precedent underscores the broader principles of legal certainty and consistency in the application of laws. The Division Bench’s ruling serves as a beacon of clarity amidst the complex web of statutory provisions and regulations, providing practitioners, stakeholders, and enforcement agencies with definitive guidance on the matter at hand. By invoking this authoritative interpretation, the petitioner’s counsel not only seeks to challenge the legality of the seizure of their client’s goods but also advocates for adherence to established legal principles in administrative actions.

The profound impact of this argument extends beyond the immediate case, resonating with broader themes of legal interpretation, judicial precedent, and the rule of law. It underscores the crucial role played by the judiciary in elucidating and clarifying legal ambiguities, thereby ensuring fairness, predictability, and accountability in the administration of justice. As the court deliberates on the petitioner’s case, it is poised to weigh the implications of this argument carefully, recognizing its far-reaching ramifications for the interpretation and application of laws governing E-way bills and similar regulatory measures.

In the current case, the goods were seized on 11th February 2018 solely due to the absence of an E-way bill. However, it has been established that during the relevant period, the requirement for an E-way bill did not apply to the petitioner’s transactions. This crucial legal point forms the cornerstone of the petitioner’s argument, asserting that the seizure itself is fundamentally flawed and unlawful.

By highlighting the inapplicability of the E-way bill requirement to the petitioner’s transactions during the specified period, the counsel underscores the invalidity of the seizure. This argument hinges on a clear interpretation of the law and is supported by legal precedent, strengthening its credibility and weight. Consequently, the impugned seizure order dated 11th February 2018, passed under Section 129(1) of U.P. GST, is deemed legally unsustainable.

In light of this determination, the court is compelled to quash the impugned seizure order and nullify all consequential proceedings stemming from it. This judicial action effectively restores the petitioner’s rights and remedies, rectifying the injustice caused by the unlawful seizure of their goods. Moreover, by dropping all consequential proceedings, the court affirms its commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice prevails.

The ramifications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case, serving as a beacon of legal clarity and protection for individuals and entities affected by similar regulatory enforcement actions. It reaffirms the principle that legal obligations must be applied judiciously and in accordance with established laws and regulations. Through this decisive judicial intervention, the court safeguards the petitioner’s rights and underscores the importance of adherence to legal norms and due process in administrative actions.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: