- (1.) 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.;