BI Agro Oils Ltd. v. State of U.P. – [2023] (Allahabad)
A transport truck transporting petitioner goods was stopped by the department, and a seizure order was issued on the grounds that an invoice and an e-way bill with dates of 23.10.2017 and 26.10.2017, respectively, did not pertain to the items that were being stopped.
The petitioner replied and claimed that while the items were being transported earlier, they were broken on the way and the oil inside spilled over other packing; as a result, the goods were returned and subsequently correctly packaged goods were delivered using the same invoice and e-way bill.
The petitioner paid the fine that the department imposed despite objecting to it and then filed an appeal. After the appeal was turned down, a writ petition was filed to contest the penalty order.
The Honorable High Court observed that although the seizing authority was required to give proof that an e-way bill was being used again, no such proof was presented. The simple claim that the assessee had used the e-way bills twice had been definitively established at the time of the seizure order would only be an inference taken without any supporting evidence. The Court determined that the assailed order was therefore subject to being reversed.
