The requirement for a complete e-way bill for the transportation of goods is mandatory, and failure to comply raises a presumption of tax evasion.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been made to order dated 06.03.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad- 5, Sector-5, Unit-1, Noida, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 imposing penalty and appellate order dated 30.05.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-3, State Tax, Noida, confirming the order of penalty passed by Assessing Authority.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST regime having GSTN No. 09AEWPA1632E1ZN. It is engaged in the sale and purchase of computer and other hardware material. The petitioner firm had carried a stock transfer of goods from its Agra Headquarter to Ghaziabad Branch amounting to Rs.8,45,000/- and Rs.1,43,500/- inclusive of tax and issued invoice No. ST/OUT/BMC/365, e-way bill no. 4113 1890 1103 and ST/OUT/BMC/366, e-way bill no. 4113 1891 6631, respectively for the said transactions. The said transfer was taking place by taking services of one M/s Shagun Logistics Cargo Services. The vehicle along with goods were intercepted at Luharli Toll Plaza Dadri, Greater Noida at about 3:16 AM on 06.03.2023 by respondent no. 2. A physical verification of consignment of goods was carried out and a detention order was passed on 06.03.2023 stating that Part B is not updated in the e-way bill. On the same day, a show-cause notice was issued demanding response from the petitioner on the points raised therein and proposed demand. Petitioner appeared before the Assessing Authority and filed its reply and penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of UPGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner deposited the entire amount of penalty and got the vehicle released. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, petitioner firm preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 30.05.2024. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first appellate authority has not applied its mind while rejecting the appeal and a non- speaking order has been passed. According to petitioner’s counsel, goods were duly covered with tax invoices and only deficiency was that Part B of e-way bill was not filled which was a human error and to be filled by transporter. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions in case of M/s. Varun Beverages Limited vs. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in [2023 U.P.T.C. (113) 331], M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others , 2024 UPTC 221, Indeutsch Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & others reported in [2024 UPTC (Vol. 116) 579], M/s. Exch. Therm Engineering Company vs. State of U.P. and others [2024 UPTC (Vol. 116) 362] and M/s Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and another [2024 NTN (Vol. 84) 213]

5. Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that there was an intention to evade the tax. He further submitted that when the goods were intercepted only Part A of the invoice No. ST/OUT/BMC/365, e-way bill no. 4113 1890 1103 was filled and Part B of the e-way bill required for transportation was not filled and it was generated on 06.03.2025 at 4:28 AM that is after about one hour when the vehicle was intercepted. It is further contended that invoice no. ST/OUT/BMC/366, e-way bill no. 4113 1891 6631 reflected that goods were being transported from Agra to Agra while the goods were brought from Agra to