Page 74 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

288 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
11. The Writ Petition stands allowed in part and is disposed of accord-
ingly.

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 288 (All.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Bharati Sapru and Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ.
MANJU NATH TRADING CO.
Versus
STATE OF U.P.
Writ Tax No. 748 of 2017, decided on 21-11-2017
Seizure/Detention of goods in transit under GST - Release of goods -
Failure to produce E-way Bill at the time of seizure of goods - E-way Bill pre-
sented before authorities concerned within two hours not accepted and no rea-
sons given by State for not accepting it - However, in view of the fact that there
is a recommendation of GST Council that till 31st of March, 2018 demand of an
E-way Bill will not be made, demand itself and the consequential demand of
cash security not justified - Goods to be released forthwith subject to deposit
of security to the extent of 50% of the value of goods in the shape of other than
cash or bank guarantee - Sections 129(1) and 130 of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017. [paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Petition disposed of
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Aditya Pandey and Bipin Kumar Pandey,
Counsels, for the Petitioner.
Shri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
as well as Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was carrying
goods from Nagpur, State of Maharashtra to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The
goods have been seized upon entering the State of Uttar Pradesh on the pretext
that the E-way Bill was not presented at the time of seizure of the goods, which
were Supari.
3. It is not denied to the State that the recommendations have been
made by the GST Council in the 22nd Meeting at New Delhi on 6th October, 2017
by which the requirement of filing the E-way Bill has been suspended by the
State Government for the time being. Even otherwise the petitioner has stated in
the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder affidavit that he did obtain the E-Way
Bill and he did present it before the authority concerned within two hours but it
was not accepted by the respondent-State.
4. No reason has been given by the State in the counter affidavit for not
accepting it. They have simply made a blank statement that it was never present-
ed.

GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  74