GST: No Seizure Valid If Authorities Fail to Prove Reuse of E-Way Bill – Allahabad High Court

The present writ petition (WRIT TAX No. – 885 of 2023), dated November 4, 2025, has been filed by a company named M/S Deepam Packaging And Food Private Limited (Petitioner), against the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another (Respondent), in the Allahabad High Court. The bench announcing the decision comprised Honourable Justice Piyush Agrawal. The petitioner challenged orders dated February 04, 2023 and May 31, 2023, passed by the respondents.

Background of Case:

The petitioner is involved in the business of manufacturing and selling packing materials, as well as having a GSTN. During the normal course of business, the petitioner received an order for the supply of printed

laminated paper roll and printed laminated polyester pouches from M/s Aaditri Enterprises, Varanasi (a registered dealer). He claimed that goods were loaded on Vehicle No. UP 78 FN 5456 and he also issued bilties. For the purpose of the aforementioned transaction, the petitioner issued a tax invoice and e-way bill; these were valid till February 03, 2023.

The petitioner further said that when the vehicle with loaded goods was travelling on the way from Kanpur to Varanasi, in the middle of the journey, the vehicle was confiscated on February 04, 2023, on the expiry of the e-way bill. However, at the time of seizure, all the requested documents were produced before the department, and the statement of the driver was listed in Form GST-MOV-01, where it mentioned the vehicle with goods was travelling from Kanpur to Varanasi.

The questioned goods were also confiscated based on the reason that transportation of the goods was made by reusing the same documents.

In conclusion to the aforementioned findings, the department issued a notice to the assessee. The assessee timely filed a reply to it, however, wherein it mentioned that the vehicle through which transportation was being carried out had developed a breakdown, due to which the goods were being transported after its repair.

However, the department did not accept its reply and issued a final seizure order under section 129(3) of the CGST Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal challenging the order; however, its appeal was dismissed without considering the material on record.

Assessee further submitted that the allegation of reusing documents was made without any enquiry from the purchasing dealer or from any toll plaza. On their way, they had already crossed Handia Toll Plaza on 1.2.2023 at 21.23 P.M.; however, no evidence has been brought as to when the vehicle returned and started its return journey.

In order to support its point, the assessee also cited an earlier judgement titled M/s Anandeshwar Traders vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No. 503 of 2020), decided on 18.1.2021.

HC’s Findings and Decision:

When the court analysed the arguments of both sides, it agreed on the point that the goods in question were moving from Kanpur to Varanasi at the time of confiscation.

It has been reported that on February 01, 2023, at 21.22 P.M., the vehicle crossed the Handia Toll Plaza moving towards Varanasi, and after that again on February 03, 2023, at 22.02 P.M., the assessee reused the same documents.

The court said, “The record shows that the authorities have neither made any enquiry as to whether, as alleged, the vehicle crossed Handia Toll Plaza on 1.2.2023 and upon its return, from which direction it returned to Kanpur and reloaded the goods, reusing the same documents, nor has any enquiry been made from the purchasing dealer.”

To announce its final decision, the court cited an earlier judgement of the high court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders (supra)’s case, where it held that in the absence of such an enquiry to establish reuse of documents, seizure cannot be permitted and quashed the seizure order.

The court, in its final decision, quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition.