- (1.) Heard.
(2.) The admitted factual position of the case is that a transport vehicle bearing No.UP-70-AT-4942 carrying 230 bags of arecanut weighing 16100 Kg. valued at Rs.27,04,800.00 was intercepted at the border of State of U.P. by the Assistant Commissioner, Prayagraj, when the aforesaid goods were being imported from Nagpur to Ambedkar Nagar i.e. from outside the State, on 10.12.2017. The driver was found in possession of bilty etc. pertaining to the goods, but not the e-way bill. A show cause notice was issued on 10.12.2017 itself under section 129(1) of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017 for seizure. A reply was submitted on the same day and on the same day in the night at 10.30 P.M. the State e-way bill was produced. Thereafter an order was passed on 20-12-2017 for the purposes of imposing penalty etc. Prior to it i.e. on 19-12-2017 in pursuance to the order passed earlier the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 2,65,000.00, i.e. tax of Rs.1,32,000.00 and some odd amount and penalty on the said amount. Reply was submitted to the penalty notice which was not accepted and a penalty of Rs.1,32,500.00 was imposed vide order dated 20-12-2017. Against the said order an appeal was filed which was rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this court dated 13.4.2018 rendered in Writ Petition No.5536 MB of 2018 wherein considering a similar issue it has been held that on the relevant date i.e. 4 Dec. 2017 when the vehicle in question was intercepted, the 'Government' referred in Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Rules 2017, which was the Central Government, had not developed and approved any e-way bill system nor any other arrangement had been made by the G.S.T. Council. The e-way bill system was prescribed by the Government of India only by a notification dated 7th March 2018. It being a case of inter-State transfer the provisions of C.G.S.T. Act 2017 were applicable and the State Government i.e. the Government of U.P. had no authority to issue an e-way bill in respect to such transactions, therefore, he says that the seizure as also penalty imposed is not sustainable in law.;