Penalty Upheld as Goods Sent for Job Work Without Mentioning Descriptions on Challan as Required Under GST Rules | HC

Case Details: Famus India vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 437 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Piyush Agrawal, J.
• Pranjal Shukla, Parth Goswami, Amit Kumar Yadav for the Petitioner.
• Ravi Shanker Pandey, ACSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s goods were intercepted during transit for the assessment year 2019-20 due to a mismatch between the unloading destination mentioned in the accompanying documents and the actual location. Upon physical verification and detention, the petitioner contended that the goods were sent for job work. However, the accompanying challan lacked mandatory descriptions as required under Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Consequently, an order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, was issued, imposing tax and penalty. The petitioner’s appeal challenging the order was dismissed, leading to the present proceedings. The revenue argued that the petitioner contravened Rule 45 and Rule 55 of the CGST Rules by failing to issue a proper challan while transporting goods for job work, thereby justifying the detention and penalty.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner’s goods were found at a location different from the one mentioned in the documents, and the challan accompanying the consignment was incomplete as it lacked essential details mandated under Rule 55. As Rule 45 and Rule 55 require a properly documented challan for goods sent for job work, the court found the proceedings under Section 129 to be legally justified. Since the interception and penalty imposition adhered to statutory provisions, no interference was warranted. Accordingly, the court upheld the tax and penalty imposed.