Penalty for expired E-way bill quashed; GPS confirms arrival and unique engine numbers rule out evasion

Issue

Whether the detention of goods and imposition of penalty under Section 129 for an expired e-way bill is sustainable when the vehicle had already reached the destination within the validity period (proven by GPS) but was parked waiting to unload, and whether an allegation of “multi-trip” usage of documents is valid for identifiable goods like motor vehicles.

Facts

The Consignment: The petitioner, a registered dealer, transported 48 motorcycles (under two invoices) using a conveyance accompanied by valid tax invoices and e-way bills.
The Journey: The vehicle reached the destination within the validity period of the e-way bill. This was substantiated by the GPS tracking report.
The Delay: Upon arrival, the goods could not be unloaded immediately due to a lack of space at the godown. Consequently, the vehicle remained parked near the destination.
The Interception: The authorities intercepted the vehicle at night while it was parked. By then, the e-way bill had technically expired.
The Allegation: The authorities detained the goods and imposed a penalty, alleging that the expired bill suggested an intent to evade tax. They further argued the possibility of a “multi-trip” scenario (using the same documents for multiple trips).

Decision

GPS Evidence Accepted: The High Court noted that the authorities ignored the GPS report, which clearly established that the vehicle had reached the destination while the e-way bill was still valid. The expiry occurred only while the vehicle was waiting to unload.
Nature of Goods (Identifiable): The Court rejected the “multi-trip” theory. The goods were motorcycles, each having a unique Engine Number and Body/Chassis Number mentioned in the invoices.
- It is impossible to transport different motorcycles using the same invoice because the unique numbers would not match.
- Furthermore, unregistered two-wheelers cannot ply on roads legally, making the theory of reusing documents baseless without specific proof of prior movement.
No Intent to Evade: Since the documents were genuine, the goods matched the description, and the arrival was timely, there was no mens rea (intention) to evade tax.
Ruling: The expiry of the e-way bill under these circumstances was a technical breach. The detention and penalty orders were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

Key Takeaways

GPS as Vital Proof: In cases where a vehicle is detained near the destination after the e-way bill expires, a GPS log is the strongest evidence to prove that the transit actually concluded within the validity period.

Identifiable Goods Defense: The “multi-trip” allegation (reusing invoices) is easily defeated if the goods have unique identifiers (Serial numbers, Chassis numbers, IMEI numbers). Taxpayers dealing in such goods should always ensure these numbers are on the invoice to rule out substitution theories.

Parking at Destination: Courts generally hold that once the vehicle reaches the destination/godown area, the “transit” effectively ends. A subsequent expiry of the e-way bill while waiting for unloading does not attract Section 129 penalties.

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Cross Wheels Auto (P.) Ltd.

State of U.P.

Piyush Agrawal, J.

WRIT TAX No. 1030 of 2023

NOVEMBER 17, 2025

Niraj Kumar Singh and Praveen Kumar Srivastava for the Petitioner. Ravi Shankar Pandey for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard Shri Niraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC for the State-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of two wheeler vehicles and having GSTIN number. He further submits that the petitioner placed an order for supply of two wheeler motorcycles, for which one tax invoice dated 03.06.2023 was issued for 7 two wheeler vehicles and another tax invoice was issued for 41 two wheeler vehicles. The same were loaded on the vehicle in question, for which the consignment note was also generated on 03.06.2023. The e-way bill was also generated in respect of all the goods in question, but due to some reason, the driver of the vehicle in question did not turn up and another driver was arranged and thereafter, the goods moved on 13.06.2023. The movement of the goods started on 14.06.2023 along with all requisite documents. The goods reached its destination on 15.06.2023 and in the morning, when the Office of the petitioner’s godown opened, the driver handed over the documents to the concerned person for unloading the goods, but due to shortage of space, the goods could not be unloaded till 22.06.2023 and thereafter, in the night of 23.06.2023 at around 2 a.m., when the driver was sleeping in the vehicle, the respondent no. 2 intercepted the vehicle and physical verification was conducted on 25.06.2023 and on 26.06.2023, the goods were detained. Not being satisfied, an order under section 129(3) of the GST Act was passed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods in question are two wheeler motorcycles, which cannot be sold without sale letter and duly being registered. He further submits that in the tax invoice, body number and engine number of the vehicles are specifically mentioned and all the documents clearly show that the goods were duly covered and there was no intention to evade payment of tax. He further submits that the tracking report was also submitted showing the goods have reached the godown before expiry of e-way bill, but due to paucity of space in the godown, the vehicles were standing near the godown, which was duly explained, but still not being satisfied, the impugned orders have been passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that merely on the basis of expiry of e-way bill, the seizure order cannot be passed. He further submits that the allegation of multy use of the documents cannot be accepted in the case of two-wheeler vehicles. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Trimble Mobility Solutions India (P) Ltd v. State of UP (Allahabad)/ [Writ Tax No. 205/2024, decided on 07.10.2025], Panasonic India (P.) Ltd. v. Addditional Commissioner (Allahabad)/[Writ Tax No. 365/2021, decided on 01.08.2025], Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. GSTL 12 (Allahabad)/[Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023, decided on 25.01.2024], Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad)/[Writ Tax No. 603 of 2023, decided on 05.10.2023] and Globe Panel Industries India (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. GST 851/83 GSTL 287 (Allahabad)/ [Writ Tax No. 141/2023, decided on 05.02.2024].

6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner was carrying the goods on a multy trip basis and the e-way bill was expired and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are two-wheeler vehicles. The same cannot ply on a road without due registration. It is a matter of common knowledge that two-wheeler vehicle bears registration number, body number and engine number. From the perusal of the records and tax invoice, it is evident that body number and engine number are mentioned in the same. The authority have failed to bring on record any contrary material showing that the two-wheeler vehicles have already been brought having same engine number and body number. Further, it is a common knowledge that no two-wheeler vehicle can ply on road without its due registration under the Motor Vehicle Act. No contrary material has been brought on record showing otherwise.

9. Further, in the case in hand, all requisite documents were accompanying the goods. Although the e-way bill had expired, but the authorities below have given no weightage with regard to the fact that GPS tracking report showing that the goods have reached its destination. Therefore, the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgements of this Court in Trimble Mobility Solutions India Private Limited (supra), Panasonic India (P) Limited (supra) and Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited (supra) as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation that the e-way bill has expired will not be attributed to any intention to evade payment of tax.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.