HC Rules Detention and Penalty Unjustified for Non-Filing of Part-B of E-Way Bill

Case Details: Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt Ltd vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 73 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Piyush Agrawal, J.
• Aditya Pandey for the Petitione
•  Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner in this matter was the assessee whose goods and conveyance were detained on the ground that Part-B of the e-way bill was not generated during transit. The assessee submitted that all other requisite documents, including the tax invoice, L.R., and e-way bill, accompanied the goods, and that non-filing of Part-B constituted only a technical breach with no intention to evade tax. The legal issue arose whether detention and penalty could be justified solely on account of non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill when all other statutory requirements were satisfied. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that no adverse inference could be drawn merely from the non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill when all requisite documents such as the tax invoice, L.R., and e-way bill were available. The Court observed that the detention of goods and conveyance was unjustified and that the penalty imposed could not be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the amount deposited under protest by the assessee was ordered to be refunded, applying Section 129 of CGST Act/Uttar Pradesh GST Act.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Fiserv Merchant Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. State of UP [2025] 174 taxmann.com 319/99 GSTL 235 (Allahabad) (para 10) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Fiserv Merchant Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. State of UP [2025] 174 taxmann.com 319/99 GSTL 235 (Allahabad) (para 5).