E-Way Bill Expiry Alone Cannot Justify Motorcycle Seizure if Documents & Delivery Proof Exist

Cross Wheels Auto Private Limited Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)

The writ petition challenged two impugned orders passed on 4 July 2023 and 11 August 2023 by authorities under the GST Act in Uttar Pradesh, which pertained to the detention of two-wheeler vehicles transported by the petitioner. The petitioner, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of two-wheelers, held a GSTIN and had placed orders for motorcycles. Tax invoices dated 3 June 2023 were issued for 7 and 41 motorcycles, respectively, and a consignment note along with an e-way bill were generated for the goods. Initially, the assigned driver did not turn up, so a replacement driver transported the goods starting 14 June 2023. The goods arrived at the petitioner’s godown on 15 June 2023, but due to limited space, unloading could not occur until 22 June 2023. On 23 June 2023, the vehicle was intercepted at approximately 2 a.m., physical verification was conducted on 25 June, and the goods were detained on 26 June 2023. An order under Section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued, and the petitioner’s subsequent appeal was dismissed.

The petitioner contended that two-wheelers cannot be sold without proper registration and sale letters, and that the invoices clearly listed the body and engine numbers of each vehicle. The petitioner submitted that all documents, including GPS tracking reports, demonstrated that the goods reached the destination before the e-way bill expired. The delay in unloading was due to the godown’s limited space, and there was no intention to evade tax. The petitioner further argued that mere expiry of the e-way bill could not justify seizure of goods and rejected allegations of multi-use of documents in the case of two-wheelers. Several precedents were cited, including M/s Trimble Mobility Solutions India Private Limited v. State of U.P., Panasonic India (P) Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Falguni Steels v. State of U.P., Shyam Sel & Power Limited v. State of U.P., and M/s Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited v. State of U.P., supporting the position that goods accompanied by proper documents and GPS evidence cannot be seized solely for e-way bill expiry.

The State, represented by the ACSC, argued that the petitioner was carrying goods on multiple trips and that the e-way bill had expired, justifying the initiation of proceedings.

Upon reviewing the records, the Court noted that the goods were two-wheelers, which cannot legally be used on the road without registration. Each vehicle’s body and engine numbers were recorded in the invoices, and no evidence was presented to suggest duplication of vehicles or registration numbers. All requisite documents accompanied the goods, and GPS tracking showed that the goods reached the destination before the e-way bill expired. The Court emphasized that no contrary material was presented to show that the vehicles were misused or intended for tax evasion. In line with the precedents cited, the Court concluded that the mere expiry of an e-way bill does not indicate an intent to evade tax, especially when proper documentation and proof of delivery exist.

In light of these facts, the Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law. Consequently, both the detention order and the appeal dismissal were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

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 M/s Trimble Mobility Solutions India Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ Tax No. 205/2024, decided on 07.10.2025], Panasonic India (P) Limited VS. Additional Commissioner & Others [Writ Tax No. 365/2021, decided on 01.08.2025], Falguni Steels Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ Tax No. 146 of 2023, decided on 25.01.2024], Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ Tax No. 603 of 2023, decided on 05.10.2023] and M/s Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others [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 M/s Trimble Mobility Solutions India Private Limited (supra), Panasonic India (P) Limited (supra) and M/s 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.