Lucknow Automotives Vs Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Gonda, Raj Kumar & Ors. (GSTAT Division Bench, Uttar Pradesh – Lucknow Bench)
Summary: GSTAT, Division Bench, Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow Bench), considered an appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against an order dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 and the consequential appellate order. A penalty of Rs.2,63,330/-, comprising CGST of Rs.1,31,665/- and SGST of Rs.1,31,665/-, had been imposed and deposited by the appellant, M/s Lucknow Automotives. The vehicle carrying motorcycles was intercepted on 20.01.2025 at about 7:25 A.M. when the E-way Bill had not yet been generated; E-way Bill No. 471521531708 was generated at 7:34 A.M., approximately nine minutes after interception. The appellant contended that the motorcycles were covered by genuine invoices and challans, the transaction was between registered dealers, the goods were identifiable through engine and chassis numbers and R.T.O. registration, and the delay resulted from a bona fide human error without any intention to evade tax. The appellant relied, among others, upon M/s Uttam Electric Store v. State of U.P. & 2 Others and M/s Osr Creation v. State of U.P. & 2 Others. The Department submitted that there was admittedly no E-way Bill at the time of interception and that subsequent generation could not retrospectively validate the movement of goods, relying upon M/s B M Computers v. Uttar Pradesh. The Tribunal found that generation of the E-way Bill after interception constituted a procedural lapse, but noted that the transaction was genuine and fully identifiable, the E-way Bill was generated within approximately nine minutes and immediately produced before the authority, and the record contained no independent material indicating suppression, clandestine movement, undervaluation, fake documentation or other positive circumstances indicating tax evasion. The Tribunal further considered the appellant’s cited decisions, including M/s Osr Creation, and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the respondent on the basis that the issue in that matter concerned an unfilled Part B of the E-way Bill and transportation to a different destination, whereas the present matter concerned submission of the E-way Bill after interception. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 04.02.2025 imposing the penalty of Rs.2,63,330/- and also set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority confirming the penalty. It further directed that the amount of Rs.2,63,330/-, if deposited by the appellant pursuant to the impugned proceedings, shall be refunded in accordance with law, subject to verification of payment and statutory requirements.
