- (1.) 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.
(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.
(3.) 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.;