Court quashes seizure order, E-way bill handwritten details deemed valid

Case Name:

M/s. Maa Vindhayavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP And 3 Others

Writ Tax No. 592 of 2018

Key Takeaways:

- Handwritten vehicle details on an E-way bill are not grounds for seizure if other documentation is in order.

- The court emphasized the importance of considering all aspects of a transaction, not just minor discrepancies.

- This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving E-way bill discrepancies.

Issue:

Was the seizure of goods and vehicle justified based on handwritten vehicle details on the E-way bill, when all other documentation was in order?

Facts:

- The petitioner, M/s. Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd., is a registered dealer.

- Goods were being transported from Kanpur to Bihar with proper invoices.

- The E-way bill was downloaded before engaging a transport company.

- Vehicle details were added by hand after downloading the E-way bill.

- Tax authorities seized the goods and vehicle due to handwritten vehicle details.

Arguments:

Petitioner's arguments:

- All required documents, including invoices and E-way bill, were in order.

- Vehicle details were added by hand as the transporter was engaged after downloading the E-way bill.

- Handwritten details do not invalidate the transaction.

Respondent's arguments:

- The judgment doesn't explicitly state the respondents' arguments, but it can be inferred that they considered the handwritten details suspicious and grounds for seizure.

Key Legal Precedents:

The judgment doesn't mention any specific legal precedents. However, it refers to the provisions of the UPGST Act regarding E-way bills.

Judgement:

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner:

- Found no irregularity in the transaction.

- Noted that the petitioner is a registered dealer with invoices clearly indicating IGST and Central Cess charges.

- Ordered immediate release of the seized goods and vehicle.

- Quashed the seizure order dated 27.03.2018 and the notice issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act.

FAQs:

Q1: Is it mandatory to include vehicle details while downloading an E-way bill?

A1: No, the court noted that vehicle details are not mandatory at the time of downloading the E-way bill.

Q2: Can tax authorities seize goods based solely on handwritten details on an E-way bill?

A2: This judgment suggests that seizure based solely on handwritten details is not justified if all other documentation is in order.

Q3: What should businesses do if they need to add vehicle details after generating an E-way bill?

A3: Based on this judgment, it appears acceptable to add vehicle details by hand after generating the E-way bill, especially if the transporter is engaged later.

Q4: Does this judgment apply to all cases involving handwritten details on E-way bills?

A4: While this judgment sets a precedent, each case may have unique circumstances. It's always best to consult with a legal professional for specific situations.

Q5: What documents should businesses ensure are in order during transportation of goods?

A5: Based on this case, businesses should have proper invoices, E-way bills, and ensure that IGST and other applicable taxes are clearly indicated on these documents.

Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,3 and 4 and Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent nos. 1,3 and 4 as well as the the seizure of the consignment of goods which was going from Kanpur to Bihar against the invoices, which are duly issued by the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner is that the invoices as well as the goods receipt (GR) issued by the transport company were containing all the details of goods as well as the tax charged.

It is submitted by the counsel of the petitioner that as required under the provisions of UPGST Act the petitioner has downloaded the requisite E-Way Bill-02 from the official website of the portal. In the E-Way Bill all the details are duly mentioned with regard to the consignment and it is further

indicated that against which invoices the goods are being transported (sold). However, since the transport company and the vehicle was not engaged, till the time of the downloading of the E-Way Bill, the details with regard to the vehicle are not mentioned and the same are being mentioned subsequently after downloading the E-Way Bill in handwriting.

Seizing authority doubted the transaction on the basis of the hand written details of the vehicle number and has seized the goods as well as vehicle.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the opposite parties. With the consent of the parties the instant writ petition is decided finally without calling the counter affidavit.

We find no irregularity in the transaction in question, for the reason, that till the downloading of the E-Way Bill the transport company and the vehicle was not engaged and the same has been engaged subsequently therefore the details with regard to the vehicle number has been mentioned by hand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even otherwise the details of the transport company or the vehicle are not necessary to be mentioned while downloading the E-Way Bill as the same are not mandatory.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and since the petitioner is a registered dealer and the invoices clearly indicates the charge of IGST and Central Cess, we find no irregularity in the transaction in question, hence, the goods and the vehicle seized on 27th March, 2018 by the respondent no. 4

are directed to be released forthwith. The seizure order dated 27.03.2018 as well as notice issued under Section 129(3) (Annexure-3) dated 27.03.2018 are hereby quashed.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 5.4.2018

SK Srivastava

(Ashok Kumar,J.) (Krishna Murari,J.)