Blank Part B in e-way bill for intercepted goods transit leads to upheld tax-and-penalty demand, writ dismissed.

Goods in transit were intercepted and, on verification, Part B of the accompanying e-way bill was found blank, constituting non-compliance with Rule 138. The assessee offered no explanation in response to the show-cause notice or before the HC, and did not file a rejoinder to controvert the State's factual assertions. Applying the principle that a party cannot advance a case beyond its pleadings, and noting that the adverse factual findings were not specifically challenged, the HC held that no ground for judicial interference with the tax-and-penalty demand was made out; the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Functionality of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh.
2. Legality of seizure and penalty due to incomplete e-way bill.
3. Petitioner's intention to evade tax.
4. Relevance of previous judgments and circulars cited by the petitioner.
5. Adequacy of pleadings and evidence presented by the petitioner.

Summary:

Functionality of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh:
The Court entertained the instant Writ Tax due to the non-functionality of the GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, as per the Central Government Gazette notification dated 14.09.2023.

Legality of Seizure and Penalty Due to Incomplete E-way Bill:
The petitioner, a registered company, transported goods from New Delhi to Telangana, which were intercepted in Agra. The goods were seized because part B of the e-way bill was not filled, leading to a proposed tax and penalty. The petitioner argued that the seizure was due to a technical glitch and that there was no intention to evade tax.

Petitioner's Intention to Evade Tax:
The petitioner contended that the authorities did not find any intention to evade tax. However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide an explanation for the incomplete e-way bill at any stage, including before the Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioner did not challenge the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order.

Relevance of Previous Judgments and Circulars Cited by the Petitioner:
The petitioner relied on previous judgments and a circular dated 14.09.2018, arguing that the authorities should not have initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. The Court, however, found that the facts of the present case were different and that the petitioner did not provide any reason for the incomplete e-way bill.

Adequacy of Pleadings and Evidence Presented by the Petitioner:
The Court highlighted that the petitioner did not specifically challenge the findings of fact in the writ petition and failed to file a rejoinder affidavit to counter the State's assertions. The Court cited several judgments emphasizing the importance of clear pleadings and evidence in legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner cannot argue beyond the pleadings and that no interference was warranted in the impugned order.

---