Case Details: Birds RO System (P.) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 778 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
-
Vishnu Kesarwani for the Petitioner.
-
Ravi Shankar Pandey for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a GST-registered trader in water purifiers and parts, filed a writ petition challenging the detention, seizure, and penalty proceedings. It was contended that multiple tax invoices had been issued for the consignment, which required the generation of an e-way bill, and that the transporter was instructed not to commence movement until the e-way bill was generated. Despite this instruction, the transporter dispatched the goods in transit, which were intercepted only by the invoices and without the e-way bill. It was submitted that the e-way bill was subsequently generated after interception due to a technical glitch and that there was no intent to evade tax. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that it was not in dispute that the e-way bill was not generated before the commencement of the movement of goods. Since the e-way bill was produced only after interception, the detention, seizure, and order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act/UP GST Act stood legally justified. The court observed that the plea of a technical glitch or absence of intent to evade tax did not negate the statutory requirement of generating the e-way bill before transit. Accordingly, the writ was dismissed, upholding the jurisdictional officer’s actions.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. [2025] 178 taxmann.com 37 (Allahabad) (Para 9) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Aysha Builders & Suppliers v. State of U.P. [WRIT TAX No. 2415 of 2024, dated 24-1-2025] (para 6)
- Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. [2025] 178 taxmann.com 37 (Allahabad) (para 6).
The post E-Way Bill Generated After Interception Justifies Seizure | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
