Time To Time Logistice VS Union of India

The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017. This section pertains to the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances during transit if there is a suspicion of tax evasion or non-compliance with GST regulations. The petitioner is seeking relief from the court, arguing that the seizure of their goods was either unlawful or improperly carried out under the provisions of the Act. The writ petition likely questions the legality of the seizure process, the grounds on which the goods were detained, and the procedural fairness involved in the action taken by the authorities. The petitioner may also be requesting the release of the seized goods or compensation for any losses incurred due to the seizure. The case highlights the legal complexities and challenges businesses face in navigating the GST framework, particularly in cases of goods being detained or seized during transportation.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petition arises from the confiscation of the petitioner’s goods while they were in transit, which was carried out because the goods were not accompanied by a proper E-Way Bill. The E-Way Bill is a mandatory document required for the transportation of goods under the GST regime to ensure compliance with tax laws. The petitioner is contesting the legality of the seizure, likely arguing that the confiscation was either unjustified or that the procedure followed was improper. The case revolves around the interpretation and enforcement of the provisions under the GST Act, particularly concerning the obligations related to the E-Way Bill during the movement of goods.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of their goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The goods were seized while in transit because they were not accompanied by a properly completed E-Way Bill. However, the petitioner contends that the E-Way Bill was indeed filled out and accompanied the goods during transit. They argue that it is not possible to generate an E-Way Bill without fully completing the required fields. Moreover, the petitioner asserts that certain details, such as the vehicle number, the address, and the driver’s name, are optional fields and do not need to be filled in for the E-Way Bill to be valid. Based on this reasoning, the petitioner argues that the seizure of their goods was illegal.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of their goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The goods in question were seized while in transit because they were allegedly not accompanied by a proper E-Way Bill, a mandatory document for the movement of goods under the GST regime.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the E-Way Bill was indeed filled out and accompanied the goods. They assert that the E-Way Bill cannot be generated unless it is fully completed, and the absence of certain details, such as the vehicle number, the address, and the driver’s name, is permissible since filling these fields is optional. Based on this, the petitioner contends that the seizure of the goods was illegal.

Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act stipulates that goods in transit may be detained or seized if they are found to be in violation of the Act or its accompanying rules. However, the petitioner argues that the conditions for lawful seizure were not met in this case, rendering the seizure unjustified. The petitioner seeks relief from the court against this action.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of their goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (U.P. G.S.T. Act). The petitioner’s goods were seized during transit due to the alleged absence of a proper E-Way Bill, which is required under the Act.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the E-Way Bill was indeed filled out and accompanied the goods during transit. They contend that the generation of the E-Way Bill is not possible unless it is fully completed, suggesting that the document was in order. The counsel further argues that certain fields in the E-Way Bill, such as the vehicle number, address, and the driver’s name, are optional. As such, they assert that the seizure of the goods was illegal.

Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act stipulates that any goods in transit that contravene the provisions of the Act or its accompanying rules are subject to detention or seizure. The goods can only be released under the conditions outlined in the Act. Additionally, Rule 138 of the U.P.G.S.T. specifically requires that an E-Way Bill must accompany goods in transit.

The central issue in this case is whether the absence of certain information on the E-Way Bill, which the petitioner claims is optional, justifies the seizure of goods under the U.P.G.S.T. Act.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner’s goods, which were in transit, were seized because they were not accompanied by a properly completed E-Way Bill.

The petitioner argues that the E-Way Bill was indeed accompanying the goods and was duly filled out to the extent required. The petitioner contends that the bill could not have been generated unless it was fully filled in. They assert that the non-filling of specific details, such as the vehicle number, driver’s name, and address, is optional, making the seizure of goods unlawful.

However, Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act states that goods in transit, if found to be in contravention of the Act or its rules, are liable for detention or seizure and may only be released under certain conditions. Furthermore, Rule 138 of the UPGST requires an E-Way Bill to accompany goods during transit. The E-Way Bill in question lacked critical information, including the vehicle number and details of the driver, which are required fields on the document. This incompleteness formed the basis for the seizure.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner’s goods, while in transit, were seized on the grounds that they were not accompanied by a properly filled E-Way Bill. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the E-Way Bill was duly filled and that it is impossible to generate an E-Way Bill without completing the necessary information. The counsel also contends that certain details, such as the vehicle number, driver’s name, and address, are optional and therefore, the seizure was illegal.

Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act allows for the detention or seizure of goods in transit if they are found to be in contravention of the Act or its rules, and it specifies the conditions for their release. Rule 138 of the UPGST Act mandates that an E-Way Bill must accompany goods during transit.

In this case, it is acknowledged that the E-Way Bill accompanying the petitioner’s goods was incomplete, lacking required details like the vehicle number, driver’s name, address, and license information. The court is therefore considering whether the omission of these details renders the seizure of goods lawful under the provisions of the UPGST Act.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax (UPGST) Act, 2017. The seizure occurred because the goods in transit were not accompanied by a properly filled E-Way Bill, a mandatory document under Rule 138 of the UPGST Act that must accompany goods during transport.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the E-Way Bill was indeed filled out and accompanied the goods. They contended that it is impossible to generate the bill without filling it out completely. They further argued that certain details, such as the vehicle number, driver’s name, and address, are optional and do not need to be filled in, making the seizure illegal.

However, under Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, goods in transit that contravene the Act or its rules are liable to be detained or seized. The court observed that the E-Way Bill accompanying the petitioner’s goods was incomplete as it did not contain crucial details like the vehicle number, driver’s name, address, and license information. Because of these omissions, the E-Way Bill was deemed invalid and not a proper or complete document. Consequently, the goods were considered to be in transit without a valid E-Way Bill, leading to their lawful seizure under the Act.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (U.P.G.S.T.) Act, 2017. The goods in transit were seized because they were not accompanied by a properly filled E-Way Bill. The petitioner argues that the E-Way Bill, which accompanied the goods, was duly filled and that generating it without complete information (such as the vehicle number, driver’s address, and name) is optional. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the seizure was illegal.

However, according to Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, goods in transit that do not comply with the Act or Rules can be detained or seized and released only under certain conditions. Rule 138 mandates that goods must be accompanied by a fully completed E-Way Bill.

In this case, it was admitted that crucial details such as the vehicle number, driver’s name, address, and license were not filled in the E-Way Bill. As a result, the bill was deemed incomplete and improper. An incomplete E-Way Bill is not considered a valid document, and the goods were treated as if they were not accompanied by a valid E-Way Bill, leading to a violation of the Act.

The court found no illegality in the seizure of the goods due to the violation of the Act. However, in the interest of justice, the court permitted the release of the goods and the vehicle upon furnishing security (other than cash or bank guarantee) as specified in Section 129(1) of the Act, to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. The writ petition was dismissed with these observations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: