Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) applies when owner is identified; Section 129(1)(b) invoked erroneously

By | December 11, 2025

Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) applies when owner is identified; Section 129(1)(b) invoked erroneously

Issue

Whether the penalty for goods detained due to the absence of an E-way bill should be calculated under Section 129(1)(a) (where the owner comes forward) or Section 129(1)(b) (where the owner does not come forward), given that the goods were accompanied by a valid tax invoice identifying the registered owner.

Facts

  • The Lapse: Goods were intercepted in transit without an accompanying E-way bill.

  • The Documents: While the E-way bill was missing, the goods were accompanied by a valid Tax Invoice.

  • Owner Identification: The tax invoice disclosed the full particulars of the owner, who was a registered dealer. Thus, the identity of the owner was established and not in dispute.

  • Authority’s Action: Despite the owner being identified, the Adjudicating Authority calculated the penalty under Section 129(1)(b).

    • Note: Section 129(1)(b) is typically harsher as it applies to cases where the owner does not come forward, often calculating penalty based on the value of goods (50% of value less tax paid) rather than just the tax amount.

Decision

  • Owner “Comes Forward”: The High Court held that since the tax invoice was present and clearly identified the registered owner, the owner is deemed to have come forward.

  • Correct Provision: In such a scenario, the statute mandates that the penalty must be determined under Section 129(1)(a).

    • Section 129(1)(a): Penalty = 200% of the tax payable.

    • Section 129(1)(b): Penalty = 50% of the value of goods or 200% of tax (whichever is higher).

  • Error in Law: The application of Section 129(1)(b) by the Authority was legally erroneous as it ignored the presence of the owner.

  • Ruling: The impugned order was set aside. The Authority was directed to re-determine the penalty strictly in accordance with Section 129(1)(a).

Key Takeaways

(a) vs (b) Distinction: The specific penalty clause depends entirely on whether the owner comes forward:

  • Clause (a): Owner claims goods $\rightarrow$ Penalty is 200% of Tax.

  • Clause (b): Owner does not claim goods $\rightarrow$ Penalty is 50% of Value (less tax paid).
  • The difference in financial impact is massive. If your invoice accompanies the goods, always insist on Clause (a).
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhi Vinayak Footwear
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
Saumitra Dayal Singh and INDRAJEET SHUKLA, JJ.
WRIT TAX No. 6483 of 2025
NOVEMBER  19, 2025
Pranjal Shukla for the Petitioner. Arvind Kumar Mishra, Learned counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard Sri Parth Goswami, Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:
“i) issue a writ or direction or pass an order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order in MOV-09 dated notice in DRC-01/Form GST MOV-07 dated 25.10.2025 and the impugned order issued in GST Form GST MOV-09 dated 18.10.2025 passed by the Office of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Jurisdiction Sector-3 (Mobile Squad-4), Gautam Buddha Nagar Uttar Pradesh, the respondent no.2, (Annexure No. 11 & 9 to the writ petition.”
3. Submission is, undeniably, goods were found accompanying with the tax invoice clearly disclosing full particulars of the owner of the goods, a registered dealer.
4. Thus, whatever infringement may have been alleged for reason of e-way bill not accompanying the goods, it may have resulted in penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), only. However, the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously computed the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(bof the Act. On that issue, reliance has been placed on Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2023] 13 Centax 144 (All). That petition was allowed on the following terms:
“12. In light of the above, the order passed by the authorities dated October 19, 2023 is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks from today.”
5. For reason of similar facts and there have been no other dispute, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this state, let the writ petition be decided with the consent of the parties at the fresh stage.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 is set aside with the direction upon the authorities to determine the quantum of penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Act within a period of three weeks from today.
7. Subject to the petitioner depositing the penalty amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act on the value of the goods as mentioned in the tax invoice, the goods may be released forthwith.
8. If any other dispute survives arising from order imposing penalty, the petitioner may avail its statutory remedies in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observation, present petition stands disposed of. Pending application/s, if any, stand disposed of.
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