Singhal Enterprises Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner, a proprietorship registered under the GST Act, challenged two orders dated 10.04.2019 and 14.09.2020. The petitioner had purchased MS Bar from a supplier in Chhattisgarh, who issued a tax invoice, e-way bill, and other documents. After the goods entered Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner instructed the driver to deliver them to another buyer, M/s Steel Center, Ghazipur. While unloading, the vehicle was intercepted because a fresh e-way bill for the intra-State delivery was not generated due to an alleged technical glitch. The petitioner presented the e-way bill on the same day, but the authorities passed an order under Section 129(3), and the appellate authority later upheld the penalty.
The petitioner argued that the goods were accompanied by genuine documents from Chhattisgarh and that the failure to generate the new e-way bill occurred due to a system error. It was further submitted that the documents proving the import and movement of goods were available at the time of interception, and no discrepancies existed regarding the nature or quantity of the goods. The petitioner relied on earlier judgments, including Sleevco Traders, to contend that no intention to evade tax existed.
