Case Title: LG Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Court: High Court of Allahabad
Petition Number: Writ Tax No. 620 of 2018
Relevant Section: Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act
Category of Dispute: Detention of Goods / E-Way Bill
Date of Judgement: 19 November 2018
Relevant Sections: Section 129(1) of the CGST/UPGST Act
Facts of the Case [¶2]
The petitioner, LG Electronics India (P.) Ltd., was transporting goods from Haryana to Greater Noida when the goods were seized on 26.03.2018 by GST authorities in Uttar Pradesh. The reason for seizure was the alleged absence of a valid E-way bill accompanying the consignment.
Question(s) in Consideration [¶3]
Whether the requirement of an E-way bill was applicable to the petitioner’s transaction during the period from 1 February 2018 to 31 March 2018, particularly in light of the seizure dated 26 March 2018?
Observation of Court [¶3]
The High Court referred to its own earlier decision in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018, where it was conclusively held in paragraph 56 that during the period from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018, the E-way bill requirement was not enforceable in U.P. Therefore, the transportation of goods without an E-way bill during this period could not be penalized.
Judgement of the Court [¶4-5]
The Court held that since the statutory requirement of an E-way bill was not applicable during the relevant period, the seizure of goods on 26.03.2018 was without legal authority. Accordingly, the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act was quashed, and all subsequent proceedings were set aside. The writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
Between Fine Lines
- The judgment affirms that no penalty or detention can be imposed for non-compliance with legal provisions not in force at the time.
- E-way bill requirements in U.P. were not applicable for inter-State movement during Feb–March 2018.
- Seizure based on such non-existent provisions is ultra vires.
- This decision protects transporters from arbitrary actions during transition phases in GST rules.
- The ruling reinforces the principle of legality and due notification under tax laws.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
| Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. | [2018] 97 taxmann.com 552 (All.) | Held that requirement of E-way bill was not in force in U.P. from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018 | Relief granted to the petitioner |
Takeaway
“No Penalty Without Law: E-Way Bill Enforcement Must Follow Due Notification”