Case Details: KEI Industries Ltd. Versus State of U.P. (2025) 28 Centax 55 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shekhar B. Saraf & Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ.
- Shri Atul Gupta, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, engaged in the transportation of goods, faced the seizure of its goods and vehicle by the State authorities due to the absence of an E-way bill. Pursuant to the seizure, an order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was passed, imposing a tax and penalty demand. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court, contending that during the period from 01-02-2018 to 31-03-2018, the requirement of an E-way bill was not applicable to goods in transit. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had held that goods transported during this period were not subject to the E-way bill requirement. The petitioner asserted that the demand was unsustainable as it was based on a non-existent statutory obligation.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that the impugned demand against the petitioner could not be sustained, as it was an admitted position by the State that the E-way bill requirement was not applicable for goods transported during the period from 01-02-2018 to 31-03-2018. Relying on the judgment in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), the Court observed that the State’s imposition of tax and penalty lacked statutory backing and, therefore, was untenable in law. Consequently, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned order, setting aside the demand raised under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the UPGST Act, 2017, thereby ruling in favour of the petitioner.
List of Cases Cited
- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. — [2018] 97 taxmann.com 552 (Allahabad) — Followed [Para 4]
