Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court in Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others considered a challenge to GST penalty proceedings arising from the transportation of Pan Masala from Kanpur to Surat. The goods were intercepted because Part-B of the e-way bill had not been generated, although the petitioner maintained that the consignment was accompanied by the tax invoice, lorry receipt and e-way bill. The authorities passed an order under Section 129 of the GST Act on 13 July 2024, and the appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 22 November 2024.
The petitioner argued that non-filling of Part-B was merely a technical breach and did not establish an intention to evade tax. It was further submitted that neither authority had recorded any finding of tax evasion. In support, the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and two others, Writ Tax No. 1774 of 2025, decided on 30 April 2025, which held that no adverse inference could be drawn merely from non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill. The State supported the impugned orders but could not dispute the applicability of that precedent.
The High Court observed that the requisite transport documents were available and that the only identified deficiency was the incomplete Part-B of the e-way bill. Applying the Fiserv judgment, the Court held that the controversy was fully covered by the earlier Division Bench decision. It accordingly quashed the appellate order dated 22 November 2024 and the original order dated 13 July 2024, allowed the writ petition and directed refund of the penalty deposited under protest within three weeks from the date of its order.
Cases Discussed
- Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and two others, Writ Tax No. 1774 of 2025, decided on 30 April 2025 (Allahabad High Court) — The Division Bench decision was followed for the principle that no adverse inference can be drawn merely from non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
The present writ petitioner has been filed assailing the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner Grade- 2, (Appeal), Second State Tax, Jhansi and order dated 13.07.2024 passed by respondent no.3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a Private Limited Company and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 and he received an order for supply of Pan Masala for which goods were loaded on the vehicle. Goods were on its way from Kanpur to Surat but the same was intercepted on the ground that Part-B of the e-way bills was not generated. He further submits that all others documents were accompanied the goods, except Part-B of e-way bill. Thereafter, an order under section 129 of the GST Act was passed for release of the goods. Against the said order, an appeal was filed which has been dismissed without considering the material on record.
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods were accompanied with all prescribed documents as tax invoice, L.R. and e-way bills only Part- B of e-way bill was not completed. He further submits that non filing of the Part-B is only a technical breach and there has been no intention to evade the tax. He also submits that no finding to the said regard has been recorded by any of the authority. He submits that merely non filing of the Part-B of the e-way bill is only a technical error that cannot be attributed to evade the payment of tax.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the Case of Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and two others passed in Writ Tax No.1774 of 2025 vide order dated 30.04.2025.
Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the goods were on journey when same were intercepted, the requisite documents tax invoice, L.R. and e-way bill were available, only Part-B of e-way bill was not filled on the said premise. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited (Supra) has held that no adverse inference can be drawn for non filing of Part-B of e-way bill.
The issue in hand is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Fiserv Merchand Solutions Private Limited (Supra). The said fact could not be disputed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. In the view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2/Additional Commissioner Grade-2, (Appeal), Second State Tax, Jhansi and order dated 13.07.2024 are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
As the petitioner has deposited the amount of penalty under protest, the same shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of this order.
