Court Grants Interim Stay on Penalty for Not Mentioning Biltee Number on Tax Invoice

By | September 20, 2025

Court Grants Interim Stay on Penalty for Not Mentioning Biltee Number on Tax Invoice


 Issue

The central legal question is whether a penalty can be lawfully imposed on a taxpayer for failing to mention the “biltee number” (transport document number) on a tax invoice, especially when Rule 46 of the UPGST Rules, which prescribes the contents of a tax invoice, does not explicitly list it as a mandatory field.


 Brief Facts

The tax department imposed a penalty on the assessee for a procedural lapse: the tax invoice issued by them did not contain a “biltee number” (i.e., the Lorry Receipt or transport consignment number). The assessee challenged this penalty before the High Court, arguing that there is no legal requirement under Rule 46 of the GST Rules to mention this specific detail on the invoice.


 Decision

The court did not pass a final judgment but issued an interim order in favor of the assessee.

The court acknowledged that the assessee’s argument “required consideration,” meaning it had prima facie merit. While awaiting a formal reply (counter-affidavit) from the tax department, the court granted interim relief to the taxpayer.

The order stated that no coercive action could be taken to recover the penalty until the next hearing date, on the condition that the assessee deposits 20% of the disputed penalty amount. Any amount already paid would be adjusted against this requirement.


 Key Takeaways

  • Penalty Must Be Based on a Specific Rule Violation: A penalty cannot be imposed for the omission of information on a document if the law does not explicitly mandate the inclusion of that information.
  • Prima Facie Case Leads to Interim Relief: When a court finds that a taxpayer has a strong, arguable case, it is likely to grant interim relief (like a stay) to prevent undue hardship while the legal issue is fully examined.
  • Conditional Stays: In tax disputes, interim stays on recovery are often made conditional upon the taxpayer depositing a portion of the disputed amount, balancing the interests of the taxpayer and the revenue.
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Varun Enterprises
v.
Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Bareilly
Piyush Agrawal, J.
WRIT TAX No. 2154 of 2024
DECEMBER  10, 2024
Aditya Pandey for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State – respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under section 127, read with section 122 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the survey on the ground that the tax invoice does not bear the number of biltee. He further submits that there is no requirement under Rule 46 of the UPGST Rules to mention the biltee number on the tax invoice and therefore, taking adverse against the petitioner is illegal. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without application of mind on the basis of presumption, surmises, conjectures and assumptions.
3. The matter requires consideration.
4. Notice on behalf of all the respondents has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel.
5. Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
6. List immediately thereafter.
7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders, provided the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed penalty amount within a period of 15 days from today. It is made clear that amount already deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed amount shall be adjusted.
8. The amount so deposited shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com