Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Piyush Agrawal, J.
M/S Zhuzoor Infratech Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another – Respondent
WRIT TAX No. - 830 of 2024
Decided On : 14-02-2025
(A) Goods and Services Tax Act - Purpose of e-way bill - Technical errors in e-way bill do not justify seizure or penalty if no discrepancies in quantity or quality of goods are found. (Paras 10, 14)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial review of administrative actions - Court quashed orders of authorities for unjustified proceedings based on minor technicalities. (Paras 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, faced proceedings after goods were intercepted due to a discrepancy in the shipping address on the e-way bill compared to the tax invoice. The petitioner argued that the e-way bill was auto-generated by the GST portal and that there were no discrepancies in the goods themselves.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the seizure was unjustified as the e-way bill had been valid and not cancelled, and the only issue was a minor technical error.
Issues: Whether the seizure and penalty were justified based on a technical error in the e-way bill.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minor technical discrepancies should not lead to adverse actions if the essential details of the transaction are intact, reaffirming that the purpose of the e-way bill is to track the movement of goods.
Result: Writ petition succeeds and impugned orders are quashed.
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Kesarwani for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State- respondents.
3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 23.1.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade -02 (Appeal ) -V, State Tax Kanpur, respondent no. 1 and the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Sector 2 (Mobile Squad-4), Kanpur, respondent no. 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 19AACZ8741R1ZA and in the normal course of business, the petitioner has received an order from Krishna Constellation Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for the supply of 16 mm TMT Bar. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner approached one of the manufacturer namely Rungta Mines Limited, Jharkhand and placed the said order with specific direction that bill is to be issued in favour of the petitioner but delivery of shipment was made at New Delhi party.
Thereafter the e-tax invoice as well as e-way bill were generated.
5. He submits that while generating, the e-tax invoice, the e-way bill was auto-populated, in other words, the contents of e-tax invoice was automatically filled by the system created by the GST portal in the e-way bill. He submits that the goods in question were accompanying with tax invoice, e-way bill and consignment note, however, during in onward journey from Jharkhand to New Delhi, same were intercepted by the respondent authority on the ground that in the e-way bill at the place of shipping address, the address of West Bengal is mentioned, (address of the petitioner) however in the tax invoice shipping address of New Delhi was mentioned, therefore, the present proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and penalty order was passed. He submits that e-way bill is electronically generated by the GST portal and said fact is specifically mentioned in paragraph no. 5 and 6 of the writ petition, which has not been denied by the respondents. He further submits that there is neither any difference or variation in the goods in question as mentioned in the tax invoice nor in the quantity or quality of the same is otherwise but merely on the ground of technical defect as mentioned above, the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, which are not justified.
6. He further submits that the purpose of e-way bill is only that the department should come to know about the movement of any goods from one place to another place so that transaction in question may not escape levy of tax, if any, at the time of passing of the original assessment order.
He prays for allowing the present writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that proceedings have rightly been initiated.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the goods in question was intercepted, detained and seized during its onward journey from Jharkhand to New Delhi on the technical ground that in place of shipping address, the address of West Bengal was mentioned but in the e- tax invoice, the same is mentioned as New Delhi. However no other discrepancy whatsoever was pointed out in respect of quantity or quality of the goods as mentioned in the e-tax invoice. It is specifically mentioned in the writ petition that at the time of generating the e-tax invoice, the system has auto-populated the e-way bill after taking details from the e- tax invoice. This fact has specifically been mentioned in paragraph nos. 4 and 5, which has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the State in paragraph no. 9. Once the auto populated details was fetched by the system from e-tax invoice created by the GST portal in the e-way bill, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner.
10. Further, if the place of shipment is wrongly filled up, then it is mer
Technical errors in e-way bills do not justify seizure or penalty if no discrepancies in goods are found, reinforcing the purpose of tracking goods movement under GST.
Imposition of penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements under the GST Act should consider the nature of the mistake and the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance.
The court determined that the continued seizure of a vehicle after correction of an error in the E-way bill was unjustified, emphasizing the importance of facilitating economic flow.
The imposition of penalties under tax laws requires clear evidence of intent to evade tax, and procedural fairness must be upheld in enforcement actions.
A technical error in documentation without intent to evade tax does not justify penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act.
Point of law: presumption could not be drawn on the basis of the existence of the e-way bills though there did not exist evidence of actual transaction performed and though there is no statutory pres....
Failure to provide notice for adverse inferences violates principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of penalty and order.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
