Case Details: Mohini Traders vs. State of U.P. (2025) 35 Centax 24 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Vishwjit, Counsel, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner’s goods in transit were intercepted, and at the time of interception, no e-way bill was produced. The e-way bill was generated later, i.e., much after the interception, which was evident from MOV-06. Goods were seized and penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act were initiated. Although the petitioner claimed that the e-way bill was produced immediately after interception, the records showed it was generated only after interception.
High Court Held
The Court held that since the e-way bill was neither produced nor generated at the time of interception, and was generated much later, the seizure and penalty orders were valid. Following the earlier decision in Aysha Builders & Suppliers, no interference was warranted, and the writ petitions were dismissed in favour of the Revenue.
List of Cases Cited
- Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 794 (All.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Aysha Builders & Suppliers v. State of U.P. — Writ Tax No. 2415 of 2024, decided on 24-1-2025 by Allahabad High Court — Followed [Paras 5, 7]
