Impugned orders were quashed and goods and vehicles were released: A mere technical breach of not updating the e-way bill with the correct vehicle number, when there was no intention to evade tax, could not justify detention and penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act.
Issue
Whether the department can seize goods and a vehicle and initiate proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), solely because the vehicle number on the e-way bill did not match the vehicle actually transporting the goods, even when all other details, including the tax invoices and serial numbers, were correct.
Facts
The petitioner purchased electronic goods, which were being transported from Agra to Aliganj. The vehicle was intercepted and the goods and conveyance were seized because the vehicle number on the e-way bill was different from the number of the vehicle transporting the goods. The petitioner explained that the intended vehicle was unavailable, so a different vehicle was used, but the transporter failed to update the vehicle number in the e-way bill. The department levied a penalty and initiated proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The petitioner consistently maintained this explanation from the outset, but the authorities did not give it any weight.
Decision
The court ruled in favor of the assessee. It held that Section 129 is a penal provision that applies when there is a contravention of the Act’s provisions during the transportation of goods. However, in this case, the court found that the error was a mere technical breach, not indicative of an intention to evade tax. The court noted that since there was no difference in the serial numbers of the items mentioned in the accompanying tax invoices, and the petitioner’s explanation for the vehicle change was consistent, no adverse inference could be drawn. The impugned orders could not be sustained in the eyes of the law and were therefore quashed.
Key Takeaways
- Technical Breach vs. Tax Evasion: A key distinction in GST jurisprudence is between a technical or minor procedural error and a substantive contravention with a clear intent to evade tax. A minor error, such as a mismatch in the vehicle number on the e-way bill, without any other discrepancies in the tax invoice or the goods themselves, is generally considered a technical breach.
- Intent to Evade is Crucial: For the harsh penalties and seizure provisions of Section 129 to be invoked, there must be a reasonable inference of an intent to evade payment of tax. When the goods, their value, and the tax invoice are undisputed, the misdeclaration of a vehicle number, especially with a plausible explanation, does not suggest such an intent.
- Transporter’s Responsibility: The court implicitly recognized that the responsibility for updating the vehicle number in Part B of the e-way bill lies with the transporter. The petitioner, as the consignor, is responsible for Part A.
- Judicial Precedent: This decision aligns with a line of judicial pronouncements where courts have consistently held that minor and bona fide errors in e-way bills should not attract heavy penalties or detention under Section 129. Instead, they should be addressed with lesser penalties, if at all, for procedural non-compliance.
- Due Process: The court’s decision highlights the importance of adjudicating authorities giving due weightage to the assessee’s explanations, rather than mechanically imposing penalties based on a single, minor discrepancy. The fact that the petitioner’s explanation was dismissed without proper consideration was a key factor in the court’s decision.
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rakesh Plastic Furniture and Crockery Emporium Tehsil Road Aliganj
v.
Piyush Agrawal, J.
WRIT TAX No. 123 of 2021
SEPTEMBER 1, 2025
Vishwjit for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Heard Sri Vishwajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.12.2019 passed by respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. GST 07/2019 as well as impugned order MOV-09 dated 22.10.2018 passed by respondent no.3. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondent authorities to refund the deposited amount to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the firm of the petitioner is carrying the business of purchase and sale of branded electronics home appliances like LED TV, refrigerator, washing machine etc. He further submits that the petitioner purchased the aforementioned electronic goods from an authorised dealer M/s Kothari Marketing, Agra who issued tax invoices on 20.10.2018 in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the supplier booked a small Vehicle No. UP80BT 8750 for transportation of the goods and with e-way bills were generated which were valid upto 22.10.2018. He further submits that due to further requirement of the electronic items, the petitioner placed further order. He further submits that since the goods could not be transported in a small vehicle a large vehicle was required for transportation, hence, another vehicle No. UP80CT 7944 was engaged and e-way bill of the said vehicle was generated. He further submits that since the vehicle No. UP80CT 7944 was not available due to some defects, the transporter changed it and sent another Vehicle No. UP80AY9714 in place of vehicle No. UP80CT 7944 without informing it to the supplier. He further submits that the transporter had not updated the vehicle number in the e-way bills and goods were transported from Agra to Aliganj, the distance being 140 kms. He further submits that the Vehicle No. UP80AY9714 was intercepted by the respondent no.3 at Tedi Baghiya, Hathras Road, Agra and the driver of the vehicle produced all the relevant documents which were found to be correct on physical verification.
4. He further submits that the respondent no.3 has not considered the circumstances and accompanied documents properly and passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2018 by imposing tax and penalty for release of the vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner deposited the penalty under protest for release of the goods and vehicle. He further submits that the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 22.10.2018 before the respondent no.2, which was rejected without considering the material on record and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the omission or mistake in the documents is liable to be rectified, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside with the direction to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods in question were electronics goods, serial numbers of the items were also mentioned in the tax invoices and no discrepancy, whatsoever was found in the items on physical verification. He further submits that once the goods were found to be as per the accompanying documents specifically mentioning the serial numbers of the items no adverse inference can be drawn to evade payment of tax. He further submits that in appeal specific grounds were taken but no weightage was given to it. The grounds of appeal have been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. He further submits that there is no intention to evade payment of tax.
6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the goods in question were seized as the same were transported on a different vehicle than shown in the accompanying documents, therefore, the authorities were justified in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were electronic items which were transported from Agra to Aliganj and the same were intercepted and seized on the premise that the vehicle number disclosed in the documents are different than the vehicle transporting the goods. The goods were seized and the proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act was initiated against which an appeal was filed taking specific ground that the vehicle number which was given in the documents was not available, hence a different vehicle was used and on the failure on the part of the transporter to update the e-way bill the petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility. It is also not in dispute that on the tax invoice, serial numbers of the electronic goods have been mentioned and no discrepancy with regard to the items and serial numbers mentioned in the tax invoices were found on physical verification. Once there was no difference in the serial numbers of the items mentioned in the accompanying tax invoices, merely because vehicle number was not updated by the transporter in the e-way bill no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed on the part of the petitioner. The change of vehicle was duly mentioned by the petitioner in its reply from day one to which no weightage was given. Once the goods as mentioned in the tax invoices along with the serial numbers were not disputed, merely on the technical breach of not updating the e-way bill with regard to the goods carrying on the transporting truck no adverse inference can be drawn.
9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, which are hereby quashed.
10. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Any amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.