G.S.T.L. 191 (All.) VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and
Ors. Date of Order 13th April, 2018
non-disclosure of vehicle No. in Part-B of E-way Bill cannot be a ground for
seizure of the goods as well as vehicle.
the movement of the goods from petitionerís factory upto the transporterís
premise for further transportation, the vehicle was intercepted. On perusing
the documents produced, it was found that Part-B of the E-way bill was
incomplete. On finding such irregularity, Order was passed u/s. 129 (1)
detaining the vehicle as well as goods and levying tax liability and penalty.
The Petitioner relying on third proviso of Rule 138(3) of CGST Rules, 2017
contested that the filing of Part B of E-way bill was optional where goods are
transported from place of business of consignor to the place of business of the
transporter for further transportation. The Respondent (Department) though
admitted that all the requisite documents were accompanied the goods when the
vehicle has been intercepted. Aggrieved Petitioner filed writ petition before
the Honíble High Court.