- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Tripura High Court Orders Release Of Vehicles Detained For Not Carrying E-Way Bills
Tripura High Court Orders Release Of Vehicles Detained For Not Carrying E-Way Bills Since the three detained vehicles were meant to provide ambulance services, the Court found it inappropriate to allow further detention of the vehicles The Tripura High Court released vehicles since it was for the business of providing ambulance services, which were originally detained for not...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Tripura High Court Orders Release Of Vehicles Detained For Not Carrying E-Way Bills
Since the three detained vehicles were meant to provide ambulance services, the Court found it inappropriate to allow further detention of the vehicles
The Tripura High Court released vehicles since it was for the business of providing ambulance services, which were originally detained for not carrying e-way bills while being transported.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, comprising Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay, dealt with the matter titled East India InfoTech Pvt Ltd v The State of Tripura & Ors.
The Petitioner – Company through a writ petition had challenged the action of the Respondent – Authorities in seizing and detaining three ambulances on the ground that the vehicles did not carry e-way bills while being transported by road from Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) to Agartala.
The Petitioner contended that all applicable taxes on these inter-state sales had been paid and, therefore, the detention and seizure of these vehicles were without any jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Respondent – Authorities submitted that the Petitioner had an alternative remedy wherein a show-cause notice was issued against the Petitioner by the Respondent – Authorities, but the Petitioner chose not to file a reply.
The Court, after going through the material on record, directed the Petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notices in order to complete the assessment for levying tax with or without penalty.
However, the bench noted the prime defence of the Petitioner that he was not a registered dealer but wanted to start a business of providing ambulance service. Due to this reason, the Court found it inappropriate to allow further detention of the vehicles.
The Ambulances were thus released by the Court after imposing certain conditions, pending the final assessment before the appropriate authority.