Centre vs. State E-way Bill?

Taxpayer was fined by the State, for carrying Central E-way bill instead of State E-way bill: High Court set aside the order 

Petitioner:

The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by Adjudicating Authority under the U.P. G.S.T. Act imposing tax and penalty on petitioner for non-compliance of e-way bill.

The petitioner is a dealer registered under GST in the State of UP. 

Petitioner made a supply of 25 batteries vide Tax Invoice dated 26.02.2018. It is clear that while raising an Invoice, the petitioner had levied and deposited IGST at the rate of 28%.

The petitioner for obtaining E-way bill, uploaded prescribed details on the portal of the G.S.T. and generated the E-way bill for the goods in question. It is stated that the details of dispatched goods were also entered on the portal and the same was also printed on the E-way bill.

It is stated that when the goods reached at Lucknow, it was intercepted by Mobile Squad of the Commercial Tax Department on 08.03.2018 and a seizure order in purported exercise of powers under Section 129(1) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act was passed on 08.03.2018. The reason as recorded for passing the seizure order was that the E-way bill system, as introduced by the Central Government under the CGST, was replaced by the State E-way bills, which had been suspended by the Central Government w.e.f. 02.02.2018. Thus, the State was of the view that once the Central Government had suspended its E-way bill, the requirement of the State E-way bill stood revived automatically and as the petitioner was not carrying the State E-way bill, the seizure order came to be passed.

Revenue:

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argues that in pursuance to the circular issued by the State Government, as contained in Annexure-1, wherein directions were issued that the provisions of mandatory E-way bill stood revived from the night of 09.02.2018 and directions were issued for taking steps to check the violations thereof, the State Authorities were justified in passing the order, as admittedly the petitioner did not have the G.S.T. bill as was required under the provisions of U.P. G.S.T. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He, thus, prays that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Held by High Court:

taxreply.com © 2025. All Rights Reserved