Agrim Wholesale Private Limited Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court examined a writ petition challenging penalty orders dated 03.05.2025 and 29.07.2025 passed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner, a GST-registered entity engaged in wholesale e-commerce trading of agricultural inputs, faced seizure of goods on 02.05.2025 solely because Part-B of the e-way bill was not generated during movement of goods. Although all other statutory documents were produced and the goods matched the tax invoices, a penalty was imposed and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner contended that Part-B of the e-way bill could not be filled due to a technical glitch and that there was no intention to evade tax. It was further argued that the penalty order lacked reasons and that none of the authorities recorded any finding regarding intent to evade tax. Reliance was placed on prior decisions of the same Court holding that non-filling of the e-way bill, by itself, does not attract penalty under Section 129(3).
The State supported the impugned orders on the ground that goods were in transit without Part-B of the e-way bill but did not dispute the legal position laid down in earlier judgments.
