- (1.) Heard Sri Nishant Mishra assisted by Sri Vipin Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.
(2.) The petitioner being a proprietorship firm is engaged in trading of iron and steel as well as their products and is registered under the provisions of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessing Authority has allotted GSTIN no. to the petitioner. The petitioner has sold 10.110 MT of Iron Scrap vide Invoice dated 24.03.2018 for the value of Rs. 1,67,017/- to M/s R.K. Enterprises of Delhi in which the petitioner has charged IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) @ 18%. The petitioner's unit is situated at Sikandrabad Road, District Bulandshahr from where goods were transported to be delivered to the consignee situated at Delhi. Admittedly, there was no e-way bill during the movement of goods from Bulandshahr to Delhi and while vehicle was crossing Ghaziabad, the same was intercepted/detained by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, IVth Unit, Ghaziabad on 24.03.2018 at 5.45 P.M. The objection of the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad was that since there was no e-way bill-02, which has been prescribed under UPGST Rules, hence the goods are liable to be seized.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no requirement to carry the e-way bill during the Inter-state movement of the goods, therefore, the same has not been handed over to the transporter at the time of delivery of the goods. It is further contended that the entire seizure proceedings are not only illegal but clearly is abuse of process of law as well as misuse of power. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the respondent no.3 was insisting for seizure on the ground of non-production of e-way bill, the petitioner has downloaded the e-way bill-02 on 24.3.2018 itself just after 15 minutes from the time of detention of the vehicle and has produced the same before the respondent no.3.;