Archana Plasmould Vs State of Up And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under the GST Act and engaged in manufacturing and supplying plastic moulds, challenged two orders dated 13 January 2025 and 27 July 2024. The dispute arose when the petitioner’s goods were intercepted and seized on 25 July 2024 solely because Part B of the accompanying e-way bill had not been generated. Although all other required documents were produced during the interception and the goods matched the tax invoice, a penalty under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was imposed, and the petitioner’s appeal against this penalty was subsequently dismissed.
The petitioner argued that the omission of Part B occurred due to a technical glitch and that there was no intention to evade tax. It was further submitted that the authorities, while imposing the penalty, failed to assign any reason or record any finding to indicate tax evasion. Reliance was placed on prior decisions of the Allahabad High Court, including rulings in Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Pvt. Ltd., Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd., Roli Enterprises, and Metloy Cast, which held that non-filling of Part B of an e-way bill, without evidence of evasion, does not justify penalty under Section 129(3).
