TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s T.K. Printers Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another - 2025 (6) TMI 737 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that tax and penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) cannot be imposed in absence of intent to evade tax, where e-way bill was generated before passing of the detention order and the goods were part of a stock transfer which were clearly not meant for sale.
Facts:
T.K. Printers (“the Petitioner”) is an authorised vendor of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (“BPCL”) with a valid GSTIN. BPCL instructed the Petitioner to transport 4 MPD machines (Petrol and Diesel delivery machines) from Kanpur to its petrol pump in Atarra, District Banda. The goods were loaded onto a vehicle, but due to a technical glitch at BPCL’s office, the e-way bill could not be generated at that moment.
On January 28, 2021, the vehicle was intercepted by the authorities, and a physical inspection revealed no discrepancy in the consignment. However, the goods were detained on January 29, 2021, on the ground that documents produced by the Petitioner were an afterthought.
Thereafter notice in Form GST MOV-07 was issued and replied to by the Petitioner along with the subsequently generated e-way bill, but the same was rejected, and an order dated February 4, 2021 in Form GST MOV-09 was passed, imposing tax and penalty. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed without considering the material on record.
The Petitioner contended that the e-way bill was generated at 12:44 PM before the detention order was passed at 6:56 PM on January 29, 2021 and that the goods were not for sale but for installation at BPCL’s petrol pump, and that no tax evasion was involved. The Petitioner relied on the judgement of this very High Court in M/s Vacmet India Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) And Another - 2023 (10) TMI 863 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, asserting that the transaction was a stock transfer and not liable to tax under the given circumstances.
Issue:
Whether tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act could’ve been imposed where, the e-way bill was generated prior to passing of the detention order, and the transaction involved was for stock transfer of goods not meant for sale?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s T.K. Printers Versus Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another - 2025 (6) TMI 737 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTheld as under:
- Observed that, the four MPD machines were not intended for sale but for installation at a BPCL petrol pump. A certificate to that effect was on record, and the price of the goods was indeterminable.
- Noted that, the goods were detained only on the ground of non-accompaniment of e-way bill and delivery challan, but the e-way bill had been generated and was submitted before the passing of detention order.
- Held that, none of the authorities below recorded any finding of tax evasion, which is essential for invoking Section 129 of the CGST Act.
- Observed that, the case was covered by prior rulings in Vacmet India Ltd. (supra) and Goverdhan Oil Mill (supra), where similar facts led to quashing of detention orders.
- Held that, the orders dated July 10, 2023, and January 29, 2021, were unsustainable and accordingly were set aside & quashed.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])