Top Stories Central GST E-Way Bill Sufficient when State Bill not Enforceable: Allahabad HC quashes Detention & Penalty Orders [Read Order] The court observed that the Central E-Way Bill was available at the time of interception, and the absence of the State E-Way Bill alone could not justify the detention, seizure, or penalty By Navasree A.M – On December 15, 2024 3:07 pm – 2 mins read The Allahabad High Court has quashed the detention and penalty orders issued against a registered dealer, ruling that during the transitional period from February 1 to March 31, 2018, the requirement for a State GST E-Way Bill under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act was not enforceable. The Court held that a valid Central E-Way Bill sufficed during this period.

The petitioner, Manas Enterprises engaged in the business of unmanufactured tobacco, had transported goods to Odisha with a valid Central E-Way Bill. However, the goods were intercepted and detained on March 17, 2018, for the absence of a State E-Way Bill. Subsequently, a penalty order was issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. Despite providing the required documents before the penalty order was passed, the petitioner’s appeal against the penalty was dismissed as time-barred. Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights – Click here to Register The petitioner contended that there was ambiguity during the early implementation of the GST regime regarding the simultaneous requirement of both Central and State E-Way Bills.

The petitioner relied on cases including M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of UP and M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. State of UP, the petitioner argued that the State GST E-Way Bill requirement was not enforceable during the specified period. Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that the Central E-Way Bill was available at the time of interception, and the absence of the State E-Way Bill alone could not justify the detention, seizure, or penalty. Take Your SME to the Next Level with IPO Insights – Click here to Register The Court ruled that the orders passed by the respondent authorities were contrary to the law laid down in previous judgments and quashed them. Additionally, the Court directed the respondent authorities to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders within one month of presenting a certified copy of the order.